Phylogeography, a relatively new subdicipline of evolutionary biology that attempts to unify the fields of phylogenetics and population biology in an explicit geographical context, has hosted in recent years a highly polarized debate related to the purported benefits and limitations that qualitative versus quantitative methods might contribute or impose on inferential processes in evolutionary biology. Here we present a friendly, non-technical introduction to the conflicting methods underlying the controversy, and exemplify it with a balanced selection of quotes from the (...) primary biological literature, to invite the philosophy of biology community to pay attention to the elements that have played a primary role in its presumed resolution. We also present the basic features of our own metascientific take on the debate, and point out—as a preliminary step in preparation for upcoming, more detailed treatments—the importance that appeals to authority in fields external to phylogeography per se have played in the current status of this highly visible evolutionary biology dispute. (shrink)

Although there is increasing recognition that theory and practice in science are often inseparably intertwined, discussions of scientific controversies often continue to focus on theory, and not practice or methodologies. As a contribution to constructing a framework towards understanding controversies linked to scientific practices, we introduce the notion of borrowed epistemic credibility, to describe the situation in which scientists exploit fallacious similarities between accepted tenets in other fields to garner support for a given position in their own field. Our proposal (...) is based on the analysis of a recent controversy in phylogeography, a biological subdiscipline concerned with the study of the historical causes of variation in genetic diversity within species in concrete biogeographical locations. Through a review of the arguments that support the two conflicting phylogeographic schools, we show that ‘theory’ plays essentially no role as a foundation of the controversy, whereas both sides borrow epistemic credibility from sources such as formal logic, similarity of results to those in other scientific areas, the authority of prominent scientists, or the presumed superiority of quantitative vs. verbal reasoning. Our case study underscores the indivisibility of theory and practice and provide a means to re-examine important philosophical issues such as the meaning of inference, rationality, justification, and objectivity in scientific practice. (shrink)

Indirect identification of innovations in wild populations involves inferring past, unobserved behavioral events. Such historical inference can make simple use of present distribution patterns of differently behaving individuals, but population genetic studies are a potential source of complementary relevant information. Methodological lessons can be taken from phylogeography, that is, molecular approaches to the history of population spatial distribution patterns and gene flows. Opportunities for such studies in primates should increase with the developing population genetic studies used for management and (...) conservation purposes. (shrink)

Phylogeography involves the analysis of gene genealogies in a spatial context, to infer the historical processes that have shaped the current population structure and distribution of organisms. The field has expanded rapidly in the last three decades, triggered by important technical and methodological advances. However, these technical improvements have not been paralleled by major changes in theoretical paradigms. I suggest that phylogeographic techniques are underutilized, and that adopting an organismal, integrative, and iterative research program in phylogeography will reinforce (...) the explanatory power of the discipline. (shrink)

Although there is increasing recognition that theory and practice in science are often inseparably intertwined, discussions of scientific controversies often continue to focus on theory, and not practice or methodologies. As a contribution to constructing a framework towards understanding controversies linked to scientific practices, we introduce the notion of borrowed epistemic credibility, to describe the situation in which scientists exploit fallacious similarities between accepted tenets in other fields to garner support for a given position in their own field. Our proposal (...) is based on the analysis of a recent controversy in phylogeography, a biological subdiscipline concerned with the study of the historical causes of variation in genetic diversity within species in concrete biogeographical locations. Through a review of the arguments that support the two conflicting phylogeographic schools, we show that ‘theory’ plays essentially no role as a foundation of the controversy, whereas both sides borrow epistemic credibility from sources such as formal logic, similarity of results to those in other scientific areas, the authority of prominent scientists, or the presumed superiority of quantitative vs. verbal reasoning. Our case study underscores the indivisibility of theory and practice and provide a means to re-examine important philosophical issues such as the meaning of inference, rationality, justification, and objectivity in scientific practice. (shrink)

Philosophical treatments of scientific controversies usually focus on theory, excluding important practice related aspects. However, scientists in conflict often appeal to extra-theoretical and extra-empirical elements. To understand better the role that non-empirical elements play in scientific controversies, we introduce the notion of borrowed epistemic credibility, illustrating our proposal with a recent controversy in a field of evolutionary biology known as phylogeography. Our analysis shows how scientific controversies that spring from disagreements about methodological issues potentially involve deeper debates regarding what (...) constitutes good science, prompting the re-examination of more general issues, such as the nature of inference, rationality, and objectivity. (shrink)

Phylogeography and zooarchaeology are largely separate disciplines, yet each interrogates relationships between humans and commensal species. Knowledge gained about human history from studies of four commensal rats (Rattus rattus, R. tanezumi, R. exulans, and R. norvegicus) is outlined, and open questions about their spread alongside humans are identified. Limitations of phylogeographic and zooarchaeological studies are highlighted, then how integration would increase understanding of species’ demographic histories and resultant inferences about human societies is discussed. How rat expansions have informed the (...) understanding of human migration, urban settlements, trade networks, and intra‐ and interspecific competition is reviewed. Since each rat species is associated with different human societies, they identify unique ecological and historical/cultural conditions that influenced their expansion. Finally, priority research areas including nuclear genome based phylogeographies are identified using archaeological evidence to understand R. norvegicus expansion across China, multi‐wave colonization of R. rattus across Europe, and competition between R. rattus and R. norvegicus. (shrink)

Graphical AbstractBy combining phylogeography and zooarchaeology, the spatial distribution and temporal dynamics within species lineages can be reconstructed. Both approaches should be used with four rat species (black, Asian house, Pacific, and brown) to understand the minimum dates of commensalism, urbanization dynamics, and connections among human societies. More details can be found in article number 1900160 by Emily E. Puckett et al.