Respuesta a Escalante (2011) "de cómo el análisis de parsimonia de endemismos (PAE) tampoco explica la selección natural"

4Citations
Citations of this article
26Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

We discuss some topics which we believe are controversial on Escalante's work (2011). Both, the definition of PAE and the classification of the types of PAE proposed by the author do not accurately reflect the proposal by the original authors. The defense that the author makes is not justified. The argument used to dismiss these criticisms are inconsistent with the classification proposed for the PAE. PAE as historical method aims at discovering relationships between areas. Thus, we believe that having the same objectives as the methods of cladistic biogeography allow us the comparison. PAE considers the endemic species in shared areas as indicative of a shared history, similar to the implementation of the assumption 0 and similar to phylogenetic systematics synapomorphies. The presence of such species in these areas could also be explained by recent dispersal events, or because they are favorable ecological conditions. The question made to PAE is essential for obtaining consistent hypothesis, but not necessarily the correct answer obtained with PAE.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Donato, M., & Miranda-Esquivel, D. R. (2012, September). Respuesta a Escalante (2011) “de cómo el análisis de parsimonia de endemismos (PAE) tampoco explica la selección natural.” Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad. https://doi.org/10.7550/rmb.29384

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free