> solely because their ancestors did so, and got pollinated.
> I wonder how one would go about testing this?
> Cover an insect-pollinated plant with netting to exclude pollinators,

I meant, how would you test the veracity of the statement "because their ancestors did so," since we have no access to that time period. I may agree that evolution is true, but the particulars are subject to intense debate

> A common assumption of comparative phylogeography is that taxa evolving in particular landscapes respond similarly to the abiotic and biotic elements that cause genetic divergence. We know, however, that species and populations vary in tolerance, plasticity, adaptive potential, and biotic interactions, all of which mediate responses to environmental variation and ultimately dictate the degree of spatial and temporal concordance in genetic structure. 

> Our current view of biodiversity in phylogeography parallels the “old view” in ecology by considering the genetic structure of species as a consequence of abiotic conditions and the evolutionary “function” of lineage births and deaths. In other words, species themselves, and their traits, are typically not considered as functionally causal in the processes that ultimately shape them.

Zamudio, K. R., Bell, R. C., & Mason, N. A. (2016). Phenotypes in phylogeography: Species’ traits, environmental variation, and vertebrate diversification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(29), 8041-8048.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html