846 
Telopea Vol. 6(4): 1996 
authors in Nelson & Rosen, 1981) are seriously lacking in references to modern plant 
geographic literature other than works by Croizat. Possibly this omission is due to 
ignorance of botanical literature, but more likely it is due to disregard of 'dispersalist' 
writings. As a botanist, I have found zoogeographic literature satisfying reading and 
highly informative; the vicariantists might find recent phytogeographic literature 
equally enlightening. For them, at least, it would seem good strategy to know what 
their rivals were up to. 
2. Only carefully revised groups should be used in ascertaining biogeographic 
patterns, tracks, or regions. And only reliable distributional data should be used 
in the construction of distribution maps. 
Faulty taxonomy can result in equally faulty biogeography. The case of Miconia 
africam Jacques-Felix is especially pertinent here. This species was the only reputed 
African representative of the very large tropical American melastome genus Miconia 
Ruiz & Pavon. Wurdack (1970) found that the type and only collection was actually 
a Brazilian Leandra Raddi of the same family. Presumably a misplacement of labels 
was involved. Instead of the African melastomes showing linkage with tropical 
America, Wurdack has assured me (pers. comm.) that they are actually strongly 
related to those of tropical Asia. 
Giulietti and Meikle (1982) examined a problematic transatlantic disjunction in Paepalanthus 
Kunth of the Eriocaulaceae. Tlie reported West African P. pulvinatns N. E. Br. proved to 
be synonymous with P. hispidissimus Herzog of northeastern Brazil and to be doubtfully 
present at aU in Africa. Again a misplacement of labels seems indicated. 
Tire map of Distyliiim Siebold & Zucc. of the HamameUdaceae presented by Balgooy 
(1966) shows a startling disjunction of the genus between southeastern Asia and Central 
America. However, when Endress (1969) examined tlie Mexican - Central American 
material, he found it to be a distinct genus Molimdendron Endress, not at all closely related 
to Distyliiim. Balgooy can hardly be blamed for accepting Standley's earlier placement of 
this species in Distyliiim. Similarly, 1 understand that the described Central American 
species of the buxaceous Sarcococca Lindley does not belong to that Asiatic genus. 
3. Studies in the museum, herbarium, laboratoiy, and library, though surely necessary 
and highly informative, cannot adequately substitute for field studies. 
Bottled or dried specimens, skins or skeletons, can hardly inform us of the natural 
history of the organism to the extent that living specimens in nature can. Field work 
continuously reveals phyletically and geographically important missing links. It is not 
just a coincidence that the greatest biogeographers of all time, Darwin, Diels, Engler, 
Guppy, Hooker, Hulten, Humboldt, Linnaeus, Mayr, Merrill, Ridley, Setchell, Simpson, 
and Wallace, among others, were or are great travellers and naturalists. A visit to a 
park or zoo is no substitute for a biological expedition. It was not until 1 saw 
Canicomyricn Guillaumin in New Caledonia that 1 could believe that the genus really 
belonged to the Myricaceae. Seeing apocarpous species of Clossopctalon A. Gray in the 
Mojave Desert ranges helped convince me that the genus belonged in Crossosomataceae 
rather than Celastraceae where traditionally placed (Thorne & Scogin 1978). 
4. The proper understanding of present biogeography must, so far as possible, be based 
upon thorough knowledge of the known fossil record, past climates, and plate tectonics. 
Ciurent distribution of a taxon is not necessarily indicative of its past distribution. 
In fact, the current range may be quite misleading. Many archaic species today occupy 
a small fraction of their former ranges. Without an adequate fossil record the 
understanding of the present range might be very difficult, if possible at all. The 
