RE: Housekeeping & Refugia

From
Date
Reply-To
In message Thu, 24 Nov 1994 08:36:12 +0000,
  N.MacLeod@nhm.ac.uk (N. MacLeod)  writes:

> I agree completely with the diagnosis of Neil C. and James M. regarding
> our recent spate of "confirmation" problems.  My posting was intended as a
> simple reminder to other Pegasus mail users that there is an option on
> their systems that can be problematic with respect to PaleoNet.  If people
> are made aware of this potential problem perhaps we won't have to deal
> with it (quite so often?) in the future.  The simple fact is that there
> are many people subscribing to PaleoNet who are new to this e-mail
> business and who are going to make errors along the way.  That's O.K. I
> think that the rest of us are going to have to exhibit a little tolerance
> in this area and be ready to offer help when our colleagues get into
> trouble.  One of the purposes of PaleoNet is to raise the paleontological
> community's awareness of and skills in this means of communication.
> Therefore, let's all (myself included) try to limit our discussion of
> this particular issue to constructive comments on how to correct the
> problem.
>
> On a more positive note, I recently read a short but interesting piece by
> Paul Wignall entitled "Do Refugia Really Exist?" in which he tried to make

>>>  Where is this published?  Can you provide a reference, please?
>>>  Thanks.

> the case that what most of us call "refugia" (e.g., China, South America,
> Boreal and Austral regions) in which faunas persist after they have gone
> extinct in other "better known" areas are really examples of a monographic
> effect.  The "better known" areas that we base much of our biogeography on
> are better known only in the sense that they have been visited by western
> paleontologists and their faunas described in the western literature.
> Wignall goes on to point out that while individual environments can serve
> as ecologic refugia (e.g., the mountain top and certain canyon habitats
> that preserve some Pleistocene terrestrial species), it may be misleading
> to speak of either small isolated continents or substantial areas of large
> continents with their crazy-quilt patchwork of different habitats as
> refugia sensu stricto.  On the other hand, there seems little doubt that
> certain biotas (e.g., the marsupial fauna of Australia, aspects of the
> Tertiary mammal fauna of South America) owe (or owed) their existence to
> the physical isolation of large, heterogeneous assemblages of habitats.
> To my way of thinking these can (and perhaps should) be spoken of as
> refugia. Are we, as I suspect, dealing with different concepts here
> (biogeographic refugia and ecologic refugia, along with a category
> perhaps best described as "monographic refugia") that are getting
> confused because we apply the same unqualified term (refugia) to all?  Do
> refugia really exist?  Any thoughts?
>
> Norm MacLeod
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- Norman MacLeod
> Senior Research Fellow
> N.MacLeod@nhm.ac.uk (Internet)
> N.MacLeod@uk.ac.nhm (Janet)
>
> Address: Dept. of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum,
> Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD
>
> Office Phone: 071-938-9006
> Dept. FAX:  071-938-9277
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---