Biogeography without area?

Abstract

Recent methodological developments in historical biogeography generally treat biogeographic distribution as synonymous with occupancy of 'areas'. The aim of biogeographic analysis has been to determine the historical relationships of these areas using information from the distributions and phylogenetic relationships of animals and plants. While this may be of interest to geologists, it is of little interest to most biologists since it offers no direct insight into the historical processes that generate biogeographic patterns. Attempts to use relationships of areas (obtained from biogeographic patterns) to understand biogeographic processes can involve circularity. Focusing on relationships of areas relegates biology to a minor consideration in biogeography. This has resulted in the unfortunate dichotomy between 'ecological' and 'historical' biogeography. A biogeography of areas also limits the information potentially available from biogeographic distributions. Choice of areas for biogeographic analysis can be problematical and analysis is sensitive to this choice. Problems in identifying and analysing biogeographic areas are illustrated with trans-oceanic and local examples of austral biogeography.