Panbiogeographic analysis is now used by many authors, but it has been criticised in recent reviews, with some critics even suggesting that studies using the method should not be accepted for publication. The critics have argued that panbiogeography is creationist, that it rejects dispersal, that its analyses are disingenuous, and that it deliberately ignores or misrepresents key evidence. These claims are examined here, and are all shown to be without foundation. The distributions of the molecular clades of ratites have not been mapped before, and they are considered here in some more detail as a case study illustrating panbiogeographic methodology.
You have requested a machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Neither BioOne nor the owners and publishers of the content make, and they explicitly disclaim, any express or implied representations or warranties of any kind, including, without limitation, representations and warranties as to the functionality of the translation feature or the accuracy or completeness of the translations.
Translations are not retained in our system. Your use of this feature and the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in the Terms and Conditions of Use of the BioOne website.
Vol. 27 • No. 4