Can whole-drawer images measure up? A reply to Johnson et al. (2013)?

Johnson et al. (2013) found that morphometric measurements of dragonfly wings taken from actual specimens and measurements taken from whole-drawer images of those specimens were equally accurate. We do not believe that their conclusions are justified by their data and analysis. Our reasons are, first, that their study was constrained in ways that restrict the generalisability of their results, but second, and of far greater significance, their statistical approach was entirely unsuited to their data and their results misled them to erroneous conclusions. We offer an alternative analysis of their data as published. Our reanalysis demonstrates, contra Johnson et al., that measurements from scanned images are not a reliable substitute for direct measurement.     

When is it coevolution? A reply to Morgan-Richards et al.

I recently hypothesised that some characteristics of fleshy-fruits in New Zealand could result from coevolution with wētā (Burns 2006a). Morgan-Richards et al. (2007) expand on the subject by offering some suggestions on how this hypothesis could be tested and by conducting several small field trials. In the process they argue emphatically against the hypothesis.Morgan-Richards et al. (2007) have rather strong opinions concerning the validity of the hypothesis that some New Zealand fruits are adapted for wētā dispersal. Future work might very well validate their opinion. Unfortunately, the data and logic contained in their Forum paper do not bring us any closer to the truth.     

Systematic bias and the phylogeny of Coleoptera—A response to Cai et al. (2022) following the responses to Cai et al. (2020)

Systematic bias is one of the major phylogenetic issues arising over the last two decades. Using methods designed to reduce compositional and rate heterogeneity, hence systematic bias, Cai and co-workers (2022) (= CEA22) reanalyzed the DNA sequence dataset for Coleoptera of Zhang et al. (2018) (= ZEA). CEA22 suggest that their phylogenetic results and major evolutionary hypotheses about the Coleoptera should be favoured over other recently published studies. Here, we discuss the methodology of CEA22 with particular attention to how their perfunctory reanalysis of ZEA obfuscates rather than illuminates beetle phylogeny. Similar to published rebuttals of an earlier study of theirs, we specifically find that many of their claims are misleading, unsupported, or false. Critically, CEA22 fail to establish the stated premise for their reanalysis. They fail to demonstrate how composition or rate heterogeneity supposedly impacted the phylogeny estimate of ZEA, let alone the results of other recent studies. Moreover, despite their claim of comprehensive sampling of Coleoptera, their dataset is neither the most diverse with respect to species and higher taxa included, nor anywhere near the largest in terms of sequence data and sampled loci. Although CEA22 does contribute additional fossils for calibration, those seeking the best available estimate for Coleoptera phylogeny and evolution based on molecular data are advised to look elsewhere.     

Redundancy or progress? A response to Driscoll et al. (2019)

Driscoll et al. (Journal of Biogeography, 2019, 46, 2850–2859) provide a critique of ‘Countryside Biogeography’, but also include ‘Conservation Biogeography’ and ‘Agriculture Biogeography’ in their criticisms. Their main thesis is that these new sub-disciplines offer a ‘conceptual wrapper’ rather than distinctive frameworks and that the consequent redundancy of terms has the potential to sow confusion among biogeographers and slow progress. Here we argue that, far from sowing confusion Conservation Biogeography, for example, has provided important focal points for emerging scientific discourse, promoting new research, spawning undergraduate and graduate courses, and facilitating the formation of new scientific collaborations. The success or failure of a new sub-discipline depends on its utility. If new framings sow confusion, introduce redundancy and provide no new insights they will not be widely adopted and cited. The development of new sub-disciplines is a strong indicator of a vibrant, socially relevant and intellectually adventurous research area.     

Assessing significance under the RMA ? moving forwards: a reply to Walker et al. (2008)

Walker et al. (2008) are critical of the methods used by ecologists and others with ?vested interests? to identify significant biodiversity values and provide for their protection under the Resource Management Act (1991) (RMA), particularly the use of the draft criteria proposed in Norton & Roper-Lindsay (2004). However, we believe that their criticism is flawed because of their failure to fully understand the context of the Norton?Roper-Lindsay criteria; unjustified presumptions they make about the roles of ecologists in assisting those applying for resource consents and administering the RMA; and a failure to take into account the current realities of native biodiversity conservation for those parts of New Zealand covered by the RMA. In this reply we address these issues and outline a way to move forwards in this debate.