The Monkey's Voyage
Page 39
161Graham Wallis and Steve Trewick . . . compiled those exact lists: Wallis and Trewick (2009).
162Many entire plant families . . . are too young: Families of plants native to New Zealand are from the Flora of New Zealand Series web page, http://floraseries.land careresearch.co.nz. The age estimates for plant families that appear to be too young to have been present at the birth of Zealandia are from Forest and Chase (2009a, b, c, d); Bremer (2009). Theoretically, some of these families could have originated in Zealandia and colonized other landmasses by overwater dispersal. However, I’m not aware of studies that indicate the origins of any of these families in Zealandia. In any case, whether they originated in Zealandia or elsewhere, their distributions must be explained by oceanic dispersal. Information on the numbers of genera and species of native New Zealand sunflowers (family Asteraceae) is from the Flora of New Zealand Series web page.
163Even these iconic Gondwanan trees: For age estimates from molecular dating that support oceanic dispersal of southern beeches (Nothofagus) to New Zealand, Cook and Crisp (2005); Knapp et al. (2005). In the case of the kauri (Agathis australis), some recent age estimates based on molecular dating are consistent with the Gondwanan breakup hypothesis (Knapp et al. 2007), but these rely on calibrations using very fragmentary fossils that may be incorrectly identified (Biffin et al. 2010). In any case, most recent estimates are too young to support the Gondwanan breakup explanation (Knapp et al. 2007; Biffin et al. 2010).
164Produced the biggest shudder of all: Sanmartín and Ronquist (2004).
166“The last great gasp . . . ”: Email from Michael Crisp to the author, January 24, 2012.
166Review of the flora of Australia: Crisp and Cook (2013). Note that the Gondwanan connection of Australian to South American plants does not contradict Sanmartín and Ronquist’s results. The latter study showed that most Southern Hemisphere plant distributions cannot be explained by Gondwanan breakup, whereas Crisp and Cook’s study indicates that the timetrees for a minority of Australian plant groups do indicate such a history. The fact that the Australia–South America separation happened relatively recently might be part of the reason why the signal of vicariance is still strong for that subset of plants.
167“I don’t see the formation . . . ” and “Plants seem to get around . . . ”: Lavin, telephone conversation with the author, September 16, 2009. The view of the distribution of woody legumes being limited by suitable environments rather than by dispersal is in Lavin et al. (2004). Along similar lines, Crisp et al. (2009) provided evidence for the importance of suitable environments for the establishment of overwater colonists for Southern Hemisphere plants. Specifically, they found that colonizing lineages had a strong tendency to occupy the same biomes in their new areas (for instance, wet forest or temperate grassland) as they had in their original locations.
168“I must now say a few words . . . ” and “I shall here confine myself to plants”: Darwin (1859), 358.
169Seeds are essentially in suspended animation: For a technical discussion that relates to the idea that seeds, because of their dormant state, can be dispersed in a multitude of ways, see Nathan et al. (2008). These researchers emphasized that long-distance dispersal of seeds often occurs by nonstandard means. For instance, a hooked seed adapted for dispersal by mammals might be dispersed on a raft or on strong storm winds. The authors suggest that such nonstandard mechanisms often make long-distance dispersal much more likely than standard mechanisms would indicate.
169Colonized the remote Hawaiian Islands: Ziegler (2002).
169Many flowering plant groups . . . are too young: For the argument that fossil evidence indicates many flowering plant groups are too young to have been affected by Gondwanan break-up, Thorne (1973); Smith (1973).
169Perceived importance of long-distance dispersal: A key work emphasizing long-distance dispersal during the period dominated by land-bridge thinking is Guppy (1906). The volume Biological Relationships Between Africa and South America is Goldblatt (1993).
170“Dogmatic and a bit silly”: This quotation and information on Susanne Renner’s career and opinions are from an email from Renner to the author, January 13, 2010.
170They also examined animal groups: Sanmartín and Ronquist (2004).
172This distinction holds for the Northern Hemisphere: Donoghue and Smith (2004).
173Fossils of elephants: Johnson (1980). The quotes “wildly in every direction . . . ” and “elephants swimming in circles . . . ” are from p. 398 of that article.
Chapter Eight: A Frog’s Tale
175John Measey was looking for the cobra bobo: For how Measey came to study amphibians on São Tomé and Príncipe, emails to the author from Measey, March 5 and 6, 2009, and from Bob Drewes, March 18, 2009.
175A massive project on islands in the Gulf of Guinea: Drewes’s blog at http://islandbio diversityrace.wildlifedirect.org/.
176“Mission from God”: Email from Drewes to the author, March 18, 2009.
177“Had eyes for nothing else”: Email from Measey to the author, March 5, 2009.
178Deep history and geography of the Gulf of Guinea islands: Measey et al. (2007).
178“Batrachians (frogs, toads, newts) . . . ”: Darwin (1859), 393.
178Rejected the story of Noah’s Ark: Browne (1983).
179“These animals and their spawn . . . ”: Darwin (1859), 393.
180Amphibian species that are apparently native: Measey et al. (2007).
181Measey was standing in the lunch line: For Measey’s conversation with Alain Morlière and the lack of response from scientists studying ocean currents, email from Measey to the author, March 5, 2009.
182Miguel Vences was studying frogs: For biographical information on Vences and his original vicariance-oriented thinking about frogs on Indian Ocean islands, email from Vences to the author, February 27, 2009.
182Vences’s most straightforward study: Vences et al. (2003).
184Its mating call was especially different: The descriptions of the calls of the Mantidactylus on Mayotte compared to the “same” species on Madagascar are based on sound recordings sent by Vences to the author, May 19, 2009.
186Discovered two other instances: Vences et al. (2003).
188The old story is that alpine species moved: Brown (1971); Grayson (1993).
188“No endemic amphibian species . . . ”: Vences et al. (2003), 2435.
189Measey and Drewes briefly considered: Emails to the author from Measey, March 5, 2009; Drewes, March 19, 2009; and Vences, February 27, 2009.
189Frog called Ptychadena newtoni: For reasons that Measey and Drewes chose to study P. newtoni, emails to the author from Measey, March 5, 2009, and Drewes, March 19, 2009.
190After getting more DNA sequences: The Ptychadena newtoni study is Measey et al. (2007).
191This eastern connection: For the East African connection of four of the five amphibian lineages on São Tomé and Príncipe, Measey et al. (2007).
192Measey finally called up Bernard Bourles: Email from Measey to the author, March 5, 2009.
193Showing arcs of lowered salinity: Measey et al. (2007).
193Let us now imagine the whole story: The description of the dispersal scenario is based on Measey et al. (2007); Drewes’s blog post of November 18, 2008, at http://island biodiversityrace.wildlifedirect.org/.
195“We cannot prove this happened”: Drewes’s blog post of November 18, 2008, at http://islandbiodiversityrace.wildlifedirect.org/.
196Dray called this kind of account: Dray (1957).
196The famous “origin of life” experiments: Miller (1953).
197Robert O’Hara pointed out: For The Origin of Species as a series of how-possibly arguments, O’Hara (1988).
197“How possibly could evolution have occurred . . . ” and “How pos
sibly could species isolated on islands . . . ”: O’Hara (1988), 148.
198A long line of how-possibly arguments: For Wallace’s description of natural rafts, Wallace (1880). For Muir’s speculation about seeds carried on pumice, Thiel and Gutow (2005). For Yoder’s speculation about lemurs surviving the trip to Madagascar by going into torpor, Yoder et al. (2003). On garter snakes being resistant to the desiccating effect of salt water, de Queiroz and Lawson (2008).
199Measey has been contemplating a trip: Email from Measey to the author, March 5, 2009.
199“We vs they”: Email from Drewes to the author, March 27, 2009.
199Other phylogenetic studies extend that list: On toads, Pramuk et al. (2008); on fanged frogs, Evans et al. (2003); on slender salamanders, Jockusch and Wake (2002); on Caribbean frogs, Hedges (2006), Heinicke et al. (2007), Fouquet et al. (2013).
200The caecilians and some of the frogs on the Seychelles: Zhang and Wake (2009); Biju and Bossuyt (2003).
201“That insects can be transported . . . ”: Guppy (1906), 509–510.
Chapter Nine: The Monkey’s Voyage
203To a small island called Rapta: Branner (1888).
204Both species are . . . closely related to South American taxa: For relationships of the worm lizard (Amphisbaena ridleyi) and the rat (Noronhomys vespucci), respectively, Laguna et al. (2010); Carleton and Olson (1999).
204“Offensively familiar”: Branner (1888), 867.
205M. atlantica’s African roots have been verified: For the anatomical and genetic evidence for the close relationship of Mabuya atlantica to African species and the evidence for transatlantic crossings by the ancestors of this species and, separately, by the ancestors of all other New World (South American and Caribbean) Mabuya, Mausfeld et al. (2002); Carranza and Arnold (2003); Whiting et al. (2006).
205At least 1,800 miles over water: Mausfeld et al. (2002).
206Other ocean crossings by lizards and snakes: For skinks (Cryptoblepharus and Leiolopisma) crossing the Indian Ocean, Arnold (2000); Austin and Arnold (2006); Rocha et al. (2006). For geckos (Phelsuma and Nactus) crossing the Indian Ocean, Arnold (2000); Austin et al. (2004). For geckos (Tarentola, two lineages of Hemidactylus, and Lygodactylus) crossing the Atlantic, Carranza et al. (2000); Gamble et al. (2011). For worm lizards (Amphisbaenidae) crossing the Atlantic, Vidal et al. (2008). For blindsnakes (Typhlops) crossing the Atlantic, Vidal et al. (2010b). For threadsnakes (Epictini) crossing the Atlantic, Adalsteinsson et al. (2009). This list only includes cases for which molecular dating or other evidence refutes alternative hypotheses, including vicariance by continental drift, movement over land bridges, and human introduction. There are several cases not included here that can be explained plausibly by either transatlantic dispersal or movement over a North Atlantic land bridge. Conspicuously missing from the list are the iguanas (Brachylophus) of Fiji and Tonga, whose ancestors may have reached those islands by crossing the Pacific from South America, a journey of some 5,000 miles. Authors of a recent study (Noonan and Sites 2010) argued plausibly, although far from conclusively, that iguanas reached Fiji and Tonga overland or by relatively short-distance island-hopping from Asia. The view that burrowing reptiles are especially poor overwater dispersers is presented (but refuted) by Vidal et al. (2008).
209The history of primate dispersal: The record of primate oceanic dispersal is reviewed in McCarthy (2005); Rossie and Seiffert (2006); and Fleagle and Gilbert (2006). A discussion of the dispersal of lemur ancestors to Madagascar is found in Yoder et al. (2003) and Springer et al. (2012), with the age of 50 million years ago coming from the latter. Regarding the overwater colonization of the Greater Antilles by monkeys: according to geologic reconstructions by Iturralde-Vinent (2006), there has been no land connection between the Greater Antilles and South America since about 30 million years ago. The earliest monkey fossils in the Caribbean (from Cuba) probably are about 18 million years old (MacPhee et al. 2003), and the oldest New World monkey fossils of any kind are about 26 million years old (Takai et al. 2000), suggesting overwater colonization of the Caribbean. However, Iturralde-Vinent and MacPhee (1999) have argued for a vicariant origin for Greater Antillean monkeys. The dispersal of macaques to Southeast Asian islands is reviewed in Abegg and Thierry (2002). The case for dispersal by Homo floresiensis between islands is from Morwood and Jungers (2009). Paleontologists also have inferred crossings of the Tethys Sea by primates early in their history (Beard 1998; Kay et al. 2004; Chaimanee et al. 2012). For Tethys crossings, see also Chapter Twelve.
210One branching point in the tree: For strong support for the sister-group relationship of platyrrhines and catarrhines, Fleagle (1999); Steiper and Young (2009); Springer et al. (2012).
210Easy to recognize a New World monkey: For the general characteristics of platyrrhines and catarrhines, Fleagle (1999).
210–21150 million years older than the earliest known primate fossils: For the earliest fossils of primates and placental mammals, O’Leary et al. (2013). The fossil ages are for so-called “crown group” primates and placental mammals, that is, the earliest fossils that fall within the clades defined as the most recent common ancestor of living primates and all its descendants and the most recent common ancestor of living placental mammals and all its descendants. Heads’s advocacy for the opening of the Atlantic as the explanation for the platyrrhine-catarrhine split is found in Heads (2010). For rebuttal of Heads’s arguments, Goswami and Upchurch (2010).
211South America was either an island continent: For South America as an island continent or connected only to Antarctica/Australia, Iturralde-Vinent (2006); Brown et al. (2006); Barker et al. (2007); Mann et al. (2007).
211Quite a few fossils in the Old World: Fleagle (1999); Seiffert et al. (2005); Heesy et al. (2006); Ni et al. (2013; supplementary information). On the first fossil monkey in South America, Takai et al. (2000).
212The studies estimated the age: Molecular divergence date studies for primates in general and for the platyrrhine-catarrhine split in particular are reviewed in Steiper and Young (2009) and Poux et al. (2006).
212The study that especially stood out: Arnason et al. (2000).
212Made their age estimate far too old: For criticism of calibration points used by Arnason et al. (2000), Raaum et al. (2005), in which the authors present several relatively good primate fossil calibration points. On problems with the use of mtDNA as applied to primates, Glazko and Nei (2003).
213All yield estimates of 51 million years or younger: The date of 51 million years for the platyrrhine-catarrhine split is from Bininda-Emonds et al. (2007). These authors initially gave a date of 54 million years, but, after correcting errors in their analyses, revised that date to 51 million years.
213The single estimate I consider the best: Springer et al. (2012).
214Crossing from Asia over the Bering Land Bridge: The North American origin hypothesis for New World Monkeys is described and refuted in Fleagle (1999).
216Share several obvious features: For traits linking Old World and New World monkeys, the disbelief in this relationship by many primatologists, and the alternate hypothesis of convergent evolution of these groups from prosimian ancestors, Fleagle (1999).
216Alain Houle built up a how-possibly argument: Houle (1999).
217Used a model that takes subsidence into account: Bandoni de Oliveira et al. (2009).
219At least eleven such cases: The lizard and snake references are given on page 321 connected to the phrase, Other ocean crossings by lizards and snakes. For the caviomorph Atlantic crossing, Poux et al. (2006) and Rowe et al. (2010). For the past and present configuration of currents in the Atlantic, Renner (2004a). I have not included the case of crocodiles crossing the Atlantic (Meredith et al. 2011a) because crocodiles might be considered more aquatic than terrestrial.
219Primates are probably second only to rodents: Rossie and
Seiffert (2006).
219“Why, it may be asked . . . ”: Darwin (1859), 394.
220In his 2007 book The Black Swan: Taleb (2010).
223Stephen Jay Gould and others have argued: For Gould’s argument about the importance of unpredictable events in evolution, Gould (1989).
223In the case of worm lizards: For the number of amphisbaenid species in the New World, Gans (2005).
223Produced some 130 modern species: For the number of platyrrhine species (128 to be precise), Wilson and Reeder (2005).
224Cerithideopsis is a genus of small snails: Miura et al. (2012). On snails emerging alive from Willet pellets, Sousa (1993).
Box: Dinosaurs Too?
221Has been dubbed Tethyshadros insularis: For this example of dispersal, Dalla Vecchia (2009).
222The collection of other fossils: For other vertebrates at the Tethyshadros site, Delfino et al. (2008).
222Ajkaceratops kozmai: For this example of dispersal, Osi et al. (2010).
Chapter Ten: The Long, Strange History of the Gondwanan Islands
226By all accounts it is a harsh place: For general description of the Falklands, Darwin (1839); Strange (1972).
227“Wretched place”: Darwin letter to E. C. (Catherine) Darwin, April 6, 1834, from the Darwin Correspondence Project website, www.darwinproject.ac.uk/home.
227Bob McDowall visited the Falklands: For McDowall’s background and trip to the Falklands, emails from McDowall to the author, October 26, 2009, and August 15, 2010, and an unpublished manuscript by McDowall sent to the author on October 15, 2009. Some additional information is from McDowall (2005) and McDowall et al. (2005).
227“Blast him out of the water” and “execute”: Hull (1988), 173. For the quotation, “destroy this person, . . . ” McDowall, unpublished manuscript sent to the author on October 15, 2009.
229Small tectonic plate that contained the Falklands: For the geological history of the Falklands, Curtis and Hyam (1998); Storey et al. (1999).