Response to Procheş (2020) ‘Biomes are nobody’s kingdom: on environmental and historical plant geography

Procheş’ (2020) criticism of Mucina's (2019) research review on the evolution of the biome concept raises several points (in this issue of New Phytologist, pp. 1460–1462). It argues that evolutionary history is a tool reserved for delimiting phytochoria (phytogeographic regions) and it is not appropriate for biomes. Procheş notes that the ‘only things biomes and kingdoms [phytochoria] have in common is that they both have to be globally mappable’. This statement bears on our understanding of the biome as an ecological‐evolutionary concept, and on how phytochoria and biomes are recognized (or delimited) and mapped. In the following, I respond to Procheş' arguments that will demonstrate a divergence in our thinking regarding the conceptual framework for differences in the delimitation of biomes and phytochory.

中文翻译：

---

生物群落是每个人的王国：生态学和生物地理学相遇的平台。

对Procheş（2020）的回应：“生物群系无人国：关于环境和历史植物地理信息

Procheş（2020）对Mucina（2019）关于生物群落概念演变的研究评论的批评提出了几点（在这期新的植物学家中）。，第1460–1462页）。它认为进化史是划定植物毛虫（植物地理区域）的工具，并不适合生物群落。普罗切斯指出，“生物群落和王国（植物鞭毛虫）唯一的共同点是它们都必须在全球范围内可绘制”。该陈述基于我们对生物群落作为生态进化概念的理解，以及对植物毛虫和生物群落如何被识别（或定界）和作图的理解。在下文中，我回应Procheş的论点，这将证明我们在生物群落和植物分界定界的概念框架方面的思想存在分歧。