The major diffiuclty is straightening out any KINKS that the revolution and rotation of the Earth creates passively across generations whether this is learned semantics of simply a consequence of action WITH reaction. I take it that Croizat's method DOES apply in this CRITICISM of Seberg whom I analysized (personal result panbiog wise) where he failed to appreciate subtle difference of plant relations to any "homology" where in Australia Croizat cited "dotting of the ground" (Principia Botanica) which Grehan DID NOT rewrite here (Track homology
Seberg (1988) vaguely refers to Oreobolus as a component of an undefined 'generalized' track that is, perhaps not surprisingly, of a 'size' and 'extent' that is difficult to establish with certainty. While Seberg (1988) failed to establish the generalized significance of Oreobolus biogegraphy, track analysis using the minimum spanning tree technique provides spatial evidence supporting a Pacific homology for the distribution of this taxon (as indicated below for the orientation of tracks away from the Pacific baseline). The incorporation of phylogenetic information presented by Seberg (1988) suggests a spatial structure " Oreobolusbiogeography
The way I see it is that Grehan had ORIENTED AND USED THE BASELINE (square in the linked pictures) where I find rotation and revolution Gladyshev wise. For some grammetological position of New Zeland Grehan does not seem to use panbiogeography around Antartica this was which is simply the biogeographic division ornithologically of Siberia. I have mentioned this in the past here and will explain more later.
This message has been edited by Admin, 08-09-2005 09:31 PM