| Full text | |
| Author(s): |
Charles Morphy Dias dos Santos
[1]
Total Authors: 1
|
| Affiliation: | [1] Universidade Federal do ABC. Centro de Ciências Naturais e Humanas - Brasil
Total Affiliations: 1
|
| Document type: | Journal article |
| Source: | Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia (São Paulo); v. 51, n. 19, p. 295-306, 2011-00-00. |
| Abstract | |
The biogeographical Assumptions 0, 1, and 2 (respectively A0, A1 and A2) are theoretical terms used to interpret and resolve incongruence in order to find general areagrams. The aim of this paper is to suggest the use of A2 instead of A0 and A1 in solving uncertainties during cladistic biogeographical analyses. In a theoretical example, using Component Analysis and Primary Brooks Parsimony Analysis (primary BPA), A2 allows for the reconstruction of the true sequence of disjunction events within a hypothetical scenario, while A0 adds spurious area relationships. A0, A1 and A2 are interpretations of the relationships between areas, not between taxa. Since area relationships are not equivalent to cladistic relationships, it is inappropriate to use the distributional information of taxa to resolve ambiguous patterns in areagrams, as A0 does. Although ambiguity in areagrams is virtually impossible to explain, A2 is better and more neutral than any other biogeographical assumption. (AU) | |