Talk:Panbiogeography

Content on this page appears to be directly plagiarized from Crisci, J.V. 2001. The voice of Historical Biogeography. J. Biogeog. 28:157-168. Specifically, the second paragraph is lifted directly without so much as a reference to Crisci, 2001.

——————— I assume this article has been written by a panbiogeographer? Although I am not a biogeographer myself and thus do not feel qualified to add a "criticism" section, even I can tell that it represents an extremely one-sided view as it is. In my research area, panbiogeographers are best known for categorically rejecting even the strongest evidence for long distance dispersal (native flora and fauna of Hawaii, anyone?) because they simply do not want to believe that it is possible and want to explain everything by vicariance only (see here for an amusing snapshot of this controversy).

The vast majority of professional biologists and geographers would be surprised to read phrases like "became established as a productive research programme" or "have shown to be powerful analytical tools" anywhere near the term panbiogeography; I know I am! In reality, the following judgement of Croizat still rings true today:

"Having written far in excess of 10,000 pages, mostly pertaining to historical biogeography, in an exuberant, redundant style, his works either have been subjected to an almost religious exegesis or have been completely ignored." (Seberg O, 1986. Syst. Zool. 35:369)

This perception of panbiogeography by everybody who is not part of the tiny community of panbiogeographers should at least be acknowledged in the article. Preferably, could a biogeographer who is not pan add a section to make this article more factual? --Alebuhn (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)