The dispersal versus vicariance debate in biogeography | Zendy

J. C. Poynton | Zendy

AI Assistant Blog Pricing

Home ZAIA Blog

Open Access

The dispersal versus vicariance debate in biogeography

Author(s) -

J. C. Poynton

Publication year - 1983

Publication title -

bothalia

Language(s) - English

Resource type - Journals

SCImago Journal Rank - 0.457

H-Index - 20

eISSN - 2311-9284

pISSN - 0006-8241

DOI - 10.4102/abc.v14i3/4.1193

Subject(s) - vicariance , biological dispersal , biogeography , endemism , ecology , gondwana , biology , geography , paleontology , phylogeography , phylogenetics , sociology , demography , population , biochemistry , structural basin , gene

Wild’s 1964 study of the Chimanimani Mountain endemics is taken as an example of a vicariance model: endemics (1) are seen to have originated in situ from a residual fragment of an ancestral, once-continuous flora; (2) are held to present in themselves no history of major dispersal; and consequently a biogeographical intrepretation involving or presupposing their ‘migrations' is not thought to be applicable. The preference Wild expressed for this model over a dispersalist model attributed to Levyns is investigated, making use of theoretical refinements developed in the dispersal vs vicariance debate within the past decade. The differences in intrepretations between Wild and Levyns appear to be unresolvable on account of their positions not being demarcated clearly enough, and the situation has not improved since then, underlining the need for attention to be given to the formulation of applicable, coherent and testable hypotheses in biogeography.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.

Having issues? You can contact us here

Accelerating Research