Oceanic island biogeography: Nomothetic science of the anecdotal

Shai Meiri

doi:10.21425/f59132081

Abstract

Islands get more than their fair share of attention from biogeographers, macroecologists and evolutionary biologists. Adding to this existing bias, I claim that oceanic islands, especially oceanic island archipelagos (and among them, especially the Hawaii, the Canaries, Azores and, of course, the Galapagos) attract much more scientific attention than the insights they offer or warrant. This focus on oceanic islands ignores other island types that may be better heuristic tools for studies of general ecological, biogeographic and evolutionary dynamics. The evolutionary and ecological dynamics of landbridge and continental islands are often as fast, dramatic, interesting and insightful, and merit more attention from island biogeographers.

Highlights

I would argue (rant, if you like) that island biogeographers tend to mostly study, model, and think about oceanic islands
We learn that evolutionary biology had its birth on islands with Darwin’s visit to the Galapagos (Darwin 1845), and Wallace’s travels in the ‘Malay Archipelago’ (Wallace 1868)
Zoologists (e.g. Durrell 1956), botanists, evolutionary biologists, ecologists and biogeographers are fascinated by islands, and conservation biologists, often need to study them (e.g. Durrell 1977, Case et al 1998, Turvey 2009)

Summary

Introduction

I would argue (rant, if you like) that island biogeographers tend to mostly study, model, and think about oceanic islands. The other two types, land-bridge and ‘continental’ islands too much focus on oceanic islands are.

Results

Conclusion