Darwin, historical biogeography, and the importance of overcoming binary opposites

It is well known that Darwin and Wallace came to discover the phenomenon of evolution through a historical approach to the geographical distribution of organisms. Before Darwin, evolution was a mere speculation that could be invoked to explain some facts. Darwin's biogeographical argument for evolution is based largely on three main explanatory hypotheses. The first is that the geographical distribution of organisms is historically informative. The second hypothesis is that long-distance dispersal over barriers is one main force (extinction is the other) that modifies the distribution of organisms. The third of Darwin's biogeographical hypotheses is that the factors that shape the distribution of organisms are mainly historical (large, often global and long temporal scales) rather than ecological (small spatial and short temporal scales). From the time of Darwin until now, a wide spectrum of biogeographical schools have provided new insights that challenge the central role of space, dispersal and history as the main explanatory hypotheses for the distribution of organisms, generating three binary opposites: (1) the spatial dimension of evolution: geographical distribution of organisms as historically informative vs. historically uninformative; (2) the processes that modify the geographical distribution of organisms: dispersal vs. vicariance; and (3) the explanation of geographical distribution: history vs. ecology. We analyse these three binary opposites to show that the components of each are complementary rather than antagonistic approaches to the study of biogeography.     

The lace web spiders (Araneae,Phyxelididae) of Madagascar: phylogeny,biogeography and taxonomy

We briefly review the potential history of Madagascar as either a Darwinian or a Wallacean island, summarize the phylogenetic evidence regarding the biogeography of Madagascar spiders, examine the dispersal history of the Madagascar Phyxelididae, and monograph the family in Madagascar. Molecular phylogenetic analyses for 32 Malagasy phyxelidid exemplars, nine confamilial outgroup taxa, and seven other more distant outgroups are performed for three nuclear markers and one mitochondrial genetic marker (28S, 18S, H3 and COI) utilizing Bayesian, maximum‐likelihood and parsimony methods. These analyses suggest that there are 14 species of Phyxelididae that may be recognized from Madagascar, that these may be divided into three genera, and that the Malagasy phyxelidids form a monophyletic group, probably resulting from a single invasion of the island by an ancestor from Africa. Two new genera, ten new species, and two new combinations are proposed: Manampoka atsimo gen. nov., sp. nov. ; Rahavavy gen. nov. , including R. ida sp. nov. and R. fanivelona (Griswold, 1990) comb. nov. and R. malagasyana (Griswold, 1990) comb. nov. ; and Ambohima andrefana sp. nov. , A. antsinanana sp. nov. , A. avaratra sp. nov. , A. maizina sp. nov. , A. ranohira sp. nov. , A. vato sp. nov. , A. zandry sp. nov. and A. zoky sp. nov. © 2012 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2012, 164 , 728–810.     

What biogeography is: a place for process

The search for understanding of the past and present processes that have and/or continue to generate observed biotic distribution patterns substantially involves historical reconstruction based on present patterns (both phylogenetic and geographical). How this should be undertaken has been a cause for major debate over many decades. Residual patterns do not always provide explicit pointers to the causal processes, and in addition to applying our understanding of earth history, we need also to carefully explore the implications of contemporary processes as a means for unravelling pattern. Some biogeographers assert that earth and life evolve together, but knowledge of distributions and ecologies indicate that this is sometimes true and sometimes false. Just as general patterns may sometimes indicate a commonality of the means that generated the patterns so, too, do observable processes sometimes indicate commonalities. Vicariance and dispersal are fundamental attributes of biotic distributions. Phylogeography has the potential to assist us in determining which of these mechanisms has generated observable patterns.     

Darwin's puzzling Expression

Charles Darwin's The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872) is a very different kind of work from On the Origin of Species (1859). This “otherness” is most extreme in the character of the explanations that Darwin offers in the Expression. Far from promoting his theory of natural selection, the Expression barely mentions that theory, instead drawing on explanatory principles which recall less Darwinian than Lamarckian and structuralist biological theorizing. Over the years, historians have offered a range of solutions to the puzzle of why the Expression is so “non-Darwinian”. Close examination shows that none of these meets the case. However, recent research on Darwin's lifelong engagement with the controversies in his day over the unity of the human races makes possible a promising new solution. For Darwin, emotional expression served the cause of defending human unity precisely to the extent that natural selection theory did not apply.     

Darwin's ‘one special difficulty’: celebrating Darwin 200

Darwin identified eusocial evolution, especially of complex insect societies, as a particular challenge to his theory of natural selection. A century later, Hamilton provided a framework for selection on inclusive fitness. Hamilton''s rule is robust and fertile, having generated multiple subdisciplines over the past 45 years. His suggestion that eusociality can be explained via kin selection, however, remains contentious. I review the continuing debate on the role of kin selection in eusocial evolution and suggest some lines of research that should resolve that debate.     

Evolution of the second orangutan: phylogeny and biogeography of hominid origins

Aim To resolve the phylogeny of humans and their fossil relatives (collectively, hominids), orangutans (Pongo) and various Miocene great apes and to present a biogeographical model for their differentiation in space and time. Location Africa, northern Mediterranean, Asia. Methods Maximum parsimony analysis was used to assess phylogenetic relationships among living large‐bodied hominoids (= humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans), and various related African, Asian and European ape fossils. Biogeographical characteristics were analysed for vicariant replacement, main massings and nodes. A geomorphological correlation was identified for a clade we refer to as the ‘dental hominoids’, and this correlation was used to reconstruct their historical geography. Results Our analyses support the following hypotheses: (1) the living large‐bodied hominoids represent a monophyletic group comprising two sister clades: humans + orangutans, and chimpanzees (including bonobos) + gorillas (collectively, the African apes); and (2) the human–orangutan clade (dental hominoids) includes fossil hominids (Homo, australopiths, Orrorin) and the Miocene‐age apes Hispanopithecus, Ouranopithecus, Ankarapithecus, Sivapithecus, Lufengpithecus, Khoratpithecus and Gigantopithecus (also Plio‐Pleistocene of eastern Asia). We also demonstrate that the distributions of living and fossil genera are largely vicariant, with nodes of geographical overlap or proximity between Gigantopithecus and Sivapithecus in Central Asia, and between Pongo, Gigantopithecus, Lufengpithecus and Khoratpithecus in East Asia. The main massing is represented by five genera and eight species in East Asia. The dental hominoid track is spatially correlated with the East African Rift System (EARS) and the Tethys Orogenic Collage (TOC). Main conclusions Humans and orangutans share a common ancestor that excludes the extant African apes. Molecular analyses are compromised by phenetic procedures such as alignment and are probably based on primitive retentions. We infer that the human–orangutan common ancestor had established a widespread distribution by at least 13 Ma. Vicariant differentiation resulted in the ancestors of hominids in East Africa and various primarily Miocene apes distributed between Spain and Southeast Asia (and possibly also parts of East Africa). The geographical disjunction between early hominids and Asian Pongo is attributed to local extinctions between Europe and Central Asia. The EARS and TOC correlations suggest that these geomorphological features mediated establishment of the ancestral range.     

On Darwin's palaeontology in The Origin of Species

I investigate the role of palaeontology within Darwin's works through an analysis of the two chapters of The Origin of Species most especially devoted to this science. Palaeontology may occupy several places within the structure of the argumentative logic of Darwinism, but these places have remained to some extent ancillary. Indeed, palaeontology could well document evolutionary patterns, showing the actual occurrence of evolution as a general “historical fact”, but it was poorly adapted to demonstrate the main point of Darwinism: the actual evolutionary process: natural selection acting among individuals. I also show, in agreement with Gould, that Darwin had great confidence in the ultimate ability of palaeontology to support his theory, and that in interpreting palaeontological evidence, he expressed a vision of natural selection much wider and more eclectic than that which has generally been ascribed to him.     

Islands and evolution: theory and opinion in Darwin's earlier years

Islands were not of special interest to evolutionists before Darwin. It was he who first appreciated their importance for demonstrating evolution in miniature. They were not of special interest because: (a) their peculiar products seemed no more peculiar than those of continents; (b) there was no special category of oceanic islands, but a continuum from such groups as the Canaries, Madeiras and Galápagos through New Zealand and Madagascar to Australia, Britain, and true continents; and (c) the concept of adaptive radiation, if known at all, was applied only to the higher levels of classification, and then very feebly.
When Darwin was young, classification at the lower levels hardly recognized convergence, and at the higher levels was subject to great changes, while only slowly separating out the major groups. In consequence, many of the facts of geographical distribution were misinterpreted, and numerous theories of the origination of species, groups, and biogeographical provinces were still plausible. It was largely the need for a historical, not ecological, explanation of the distribution of some mammals and plants, plus what he saw for himself in the Galápagos Islands, that convinced Darwin that evolution had occurred. His was a remarkable achievement in recognizing through all this 'noise' the meaning of adaptive radiation.     

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution: A review of our present understanding

The paper characterizes Darwin's theory, providing a synthesis of recent historical investigations in this area. Darwin's reading of Malthus led him to appreciate the importance of population pressures, and subsequently of natural selection, with the help of the wedge metaphor. But, in itself, natural selection did not furnish an adequate account of the origin of species, for which a principle of divergence was needed. Initially, Darwin attributed this to geographical isolation, but later, following his work on barnacles which underscored the significance of variation, and arising from his work on botanical arithmetic, he supposed that diversity allowed more places to be occupied in a given region. So isolation was not regarded as essential. Large regions with intense competition, and with ample variation spread by blending, would facilitate speciation. The notion of place was different from niche, and it is questioned whether Darwin's views on ecology were as modern as is commonly supposed. Two notions of struggle are found in Darwin's theory; and three notions of variation. Criticisms of his theory led him to emphasize the importance of variation over a range of forms. Hence the theory was populational rather than typological. The theory required a Lamarckian notion of inheritable changes initiated by the environment as a source of variation. Also, Darwin deployed a use/habit theory; and the notion of sexual selection. Selection normally acted at the level of the individual, though kin selection was possible. Group selection was hinted at for man. Darwin's thinking (and also the exposition of his theory) was generally guided by the domestic-organism analogy, which satisfied his methodological requirement of a vera causa principle.     

Historical biogeography: Geography as evolution,evolution as geography

Abstract

Despite a number of advances in method in recent years, biogeography remains a field with a poorly developed philosophical core. As a result, its historical and ecological sides remain as isolated from one another as ever. In this essay I argue that a more unified approach to biogeographic studies will become possible only when workers realise that it is necessary to reject absolute space, “geography as handmaiden” approaches to distribution problems in favour of structuralist models compatible with both probabilistic spatial interaction and deterministic phylogenetic kinds of thinking. Pros and cons of regionalist, vicariance, and panbiogeographic approaches are weighed in this regard; it is shown that the primary objections of the latter schools to the approach of the former are vitiated when one dwells on second-order, rather than first-order, interpretations of regional faunal structure. This approach makes it possible to construct joint taxonomic/spatial models conducive to pattern analysis; the latter permits the genesis of hypotheses that can be tested through independently conceived theories of process (such as vicariance). An example of the kind of pattern study envisioned, involving generalised track depiction, is briefly described. A suggested cycle of research is thus laid out in which systematic revision becomes a function of a joint “natural” spatial and phylogenetic/historical approach to the subject.     

The historical biogeography of Mammalia

Palaeobiogeographic reconstructions are underpinned by phylogenies, divergence times and ancestral area reconstructions, which together yield ancestral area chronograms that provide a basis for proposing and testing hypotheses of dispersal and vicariance. Methods for area coding include multi-state coding with a single character, binary coding with multiple characters and string coding. Ancestral reconstruction methods are divided into parsimony versus Bayesian/likelihood approaches. We compared nine methods for reconstructing ancestral areas for placental mammals. Ambiguous reconstructions were a problem for all methods. Important differences resulted from coding areas based on the geographical ranges of extant species versus the geographical provenance of the oldest fossil for each lineage. Africa and South America were reconstructed as the ancestral areas for Afrotheria and Xenarthra, respectively. Most methods reconstructed Eurasia as the ancestral area for Boreoeutheria, Euarchontoglires and Laurasiatheria. The coincidence of molecular dates for the separation of Afrotheria and Xenarthra at approximately 100 Ma with the plate tectonic sundering of Africa and South America hints at the importance of vicariance in the early history of Placentalia. Dispersal has also been important including the origins of Madagascar's endemic mammal fauna. Further studies will benefit from increased taxon sampling and the application of new ancestral area reconstruction methods.     

The voice of historical biogeography

Historical biogeography is going through an extraordinary revolution concerning its foundations, basic concepts, methods, and relationships to other disciplines of comparative biology. There are external and internal forces that are shaping the present of historical biogeography. The external forces are: global tectonics as the dominant paradigm in geosciences, cladistics as the basic language of comparative biology and the biologist's perception of biogeography. The internal forces are: the proliferation of competing articulations, recourse to philosophy and the debate over fundamentals. The importance of the geographical dimension of life's diversity to any understanding of the history of life on earth is emphasized. Three different kinds of processes that modify the geographical spatial arrangement of the organisms are identified: extinction, dispersal and vicariance. Reconstructing past biogeographic events can be done from three different perspectives: (1) the distribution of individual groups (taxon biogeography) (2) areas of endemism (area biogeography), and (3) biotas (spatial homology). There are at least nine basic historical biogeographic approaches: centre of origin and dispersal, panbiogeography, phylogenetic biogeography, cladistic biogeography, phylogeography, parsimony analysis of endemicity, event-based methods, ancestral areas, and experimental biogeography. These nine approaches contain at least 30 techniques (23 of them have been proposed in the last 14 years). The whole practice and philosophy of biogeography depend upon the development of a coherent and comprehensive conceptual framework for handling the distribution of organisms and events in space.     

A comparative analysis of the Darwin-Wallace papers and the development of the concept of natural selection

The classical theory of descent with modification by means of natural selection had no mother, but did have two English fathers, Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913). In 1858,the Linnean Society of London published two contributions of these naturalists and acknowledged both authors as the proponents of a novel hypothesis on the driving force of organismic evolution. In the present report the most important sections of the Darwin-Wallace papers are summarized. This close reading of both publications reveals six striking differences in emphasis: Darwin and Wallace did not propose identical ideas. The species definitions of both authors are described and the further development of the concept of natural selection in wild populations is reviewed. It is shown that the contributions of A.R. Wallace, who died 90 years ago, are more significant than usually acknowledged. I conclude that natural selection's lesser known co-discoverer should be regarded as one of the most important pioneers of evolutionary biology, whose original contributions are underestimated by most contemporary scientists.     

The other face of Lyell: historical biogeography in his Principles of geology

Although some excellent articles about Lyell's work have been published, they do not explicitly deal with Lyell's biogeographical conceptions. The purpose of this paper is to analyse Lyell's biogeographical model in terms of its own internal structure. Lyell tried to explain the distribution of organisms by appealing to a real cause (climate). However, he was aware that environmental conditions were clearly insufficient to explain the existence of biogeographical regions. Lyell's adherence to ecological determinism generated strong tensions within his biogeographical model. He shifted from granting a secondary weight to dispersal to assigning it a major role. By doing so, Lyell was led into an evident contradiction. A permanent tension in Lyell's ideas was generated by the prevalent explanatory pattern of his time. The explanatory model based on laws did not produce satisfactory results in biology because it did not deal with historical processes. We may conclude that the knowledge of organic distribution interested Lyell as long as it could be explained by the uniformitarian principles of his geological system. The importance of the second volume of the Principles of geology lies in its ample and systematic argumentation about the geographical distribution of organisms. Lyell established, independently from any theory about organic change, the first version of dispersalist biogeography.     

Minute moss beetles in the Southern Hemisphere: Molecular phylogeny,historical biogeography and habitat shifts (Coleoptera: Hydraenidae)

Minute moss beetles (Hydraenidae) are one of the most speciose and widespread families of aquatic Coleoptera, with an estimated 4000 extant species, found in the majority of aquatic habitats from coastal rock pools to mountain streams and from the Arctic Circle to the Antarctic islands. Molecular phylogenetic works have improved our understanding of the evolutionary history of the megadiverse Hydraena, Limnebius and Ochthebius in recent years, but most genera in the family have not yet been included in any phylogenetic analyses, particularly most of those which are restricted to the Southern Hemisphere. Using a multimarker molecular matrix, sampling over 40% of described species richness and 75% of currently recognized genera, we infer a comprehensive molecular phylogeny of these predominantly Gondwanan Hydraenidae. Whilst the genera we focus on are morphologically diverse, and currently classified across all four hydraenid subfamilies, our phylogenetic analyses suggest that these Gondwanan genera may instead constitute a single clade. As a result of our findings, the African genus Oomtelecopon Perkins syn.n. is shown to nest within Coelometopon Janssens, the New Zealand Homalaena Ordish syn.n. and Podaena Ordish syn.n. are synonymised with Orchymontia Broun, and the South African Pterosthetops Perkins syn.n. is synonymised with Prosthetops Waterhouse, resulting in Pterosthetopini Perkins syn.n. being synonymised with Prosthetopini Perkins. Mesoceratops Bilton & Jäch gen.n. is erected to accommodate six former members of Mesoceration Janssens, which is shown to be polyphyletic. We propose the replacement name Orchymontia ordishi Jäch & Bilton nom.n. for Homalaena dilatata Ordish, 1984 (now a junior homonym); altogether 39 new combinations are proposed. Our Bayesian divergence times infer an origin for this ‘Gondwana group’ of genera in Africa plus Madagascar in the mid-Cretaceous and suggest that both vicariant and dispersal processes, together with extinctions, have shaped the biogeographic history of these beetles in the Southern Hemisphere during the Cretaceous, resulting in geographically conserved extant lineages. Finally, we reconstruct ancestral habitat shifts across our phylogeny, revealing numerous changes in habitat occupancy in these genera, including multiple origins of fully terrestrial, humicolous taxa in different regions.     

Panbiogeography: Its origin,metamorphosis and decline

From the viewpoint of 2007, one can trace the history of an interesting and contentious trend in biogeography and evolution that began with Croizat’s concept of panbiogeography in 1958. After a quiescent period of about 16 years, some young biologists in New York and in New Zealand read Croizat’s books and became enthusiastic supporters of his ideas. In New York, in the early 1970s, panbiogeography was combined with a part of Hennig’s phylogenetic method to create vicariance biogeography. In 1986, the name of the latter was changed to cladistic biogeography. In the meantime, Croizat’s followers in New Zealand sought to maintain panbiogeography in its original form without reference to phylogeny. This idea reached its peak of popularity in 1989–1990 and then began to fade. In comparison, cladistic biogeography became much more widespread, especially when its followers began publishing laudatory books and papers. Its decline became noticeable after the turn of the century as the dispersal counterrevolution began to have its effect. It served a useful purpose by engaging the interest of young biologists who otherwise may not have become aware of biogeography.