THE BEGINNING AND END OF DISPERSAL - THE REPRESENTATION OF PANBIOGEOGRAPHY

The contrast in theory and method between Croizat's panbiogeography and traditional approaches to biogeography presents traditional biogeographers with a significant hurdle when attempting to portray panbiogeography. This epistemological barrier can result in panbiogeography being mis-represented when attempting to categorize panbiogeography within traditional frameworks that are not applicable in a panbiogeographic context. The conflict between the traditional contexts presented in Cox & Moore (1993) and the alternative methods and concepts developed in panbiogeography are illustrated here with respect to the following issues: (1) standard tracks as vicariance events rather than biogeographic (spatial) homologies, (2) Croizat opposing tectonics rather than integrating tectonics with biogeographic patterns, (3, 4) Croizat giving little attention to fossils and climate rather than extensively discussing their relationships with biogeography, (5) ocean baselines being inappropriate to terrestrial patterns rather than representing the spatial homologies, and (6) treating main massings as Darwinian centres of origin rather than spatial criteria for orienting tracks.