Ron,

I agree with Paul that much work needs to be done in this area. In the
book that I edited, The Mollusks: A Guide to Their Study, Collection, and
Preservation, Chapter 9 has a biogeographical zone maps for marine and
non-marine zonation. We used these to help organize literature for
selected regions. Some of the regions can be further subdivided if one so
choses. For example, most of non-marine North America is in the Nearctic
Zone. However, the organisms in Canada differ greatly from those in Texas
and Mexico. The unionids from the Atlantic Coastal Plain differ from those
of the Midwest. Heck, the unionids from the eastern Appalachian Region
differ from those of the western Appalachian Region. Given enough data,
one can divide larger zones into smaller ones that are more precise and
descriptive.

Keep in mind that the zones can differ depending on what organisms you are
dealing with. The zones for plants may differ from those for animals.
those for fish may differ from those from mollusks. One has to specify how
the zones are being defined.

This is an area of ecological and biogeographic research that is open for
new research. Unfortunately, I don't see this type of research being
popular with granting agencies. This might be a nice project for amateurs
and clubs to help in generating lists where specimens come from and thus
have a good database for others to help define zones based on more precise
data. Who wants to take up the challenge!? This would be similar to the
work done by the American Association of Variable Star Observers. It is a
network of amateurs who observe variable stars. They record their
observations and these are collated by AAVSO and made available to
professional astronomer.  It is a nice model of amateur-professional
collaboration.

If you find a nice collation of biogeographical zone, please post it for
the rest of us!

> Hi Ron,
>
> The classical biogeographic regions used for the Mollusca are beginning to
> show their age, and particularly so in your part of the world. The
> 'Japonic Province' is an area that traditionally encompassed Japan, the
> Japan Sea, sometimes the Kuril Islands and, er, maybe Taiwan. With more
> scientific collecting (as opposed to just getting things from trawlers
> that go who knows where) and publishing of results, however, we are
> finding that the shallow, slow-turnover East China Sea has its own
> interesting 'dead-end' fauna up in the Yellow Sea (a fauna that is fed
> from one direction only) and that Japan has two distinct faunas - both
> dead ends - the warm, western shallow-water fauna that has much in common
> with those of the Philippines and Taiwan, and the cold, deeper-water fauna
> of the northeast, which is pretty much Alaskan-Aleutian in nature. At the
> ends of distributions interesting things occur. On the Kii Peninsula in
> central Japan, for example, there are over 110 species of Co!
>  nus recorded - but many are so infrequent and represented by such odd
> morphs that it seems likely that these are serial planktonic
> introductions rather than established populations.
> As for the Indo-Pacific, well that was a good blanket province back when
> we knew the biogeography of about half the number of species that we do
> now. It still comes in handy in conversation, but I'd be wary of using it
> as some kind of formal delineator of a species's distribution.
>
> Regards,
>
> PC.
>
> Paul Callomon
> Collections Manager
> Malacology, Invertebrate Paleontology and General Invertebrates
> Department of Malacology
> Academy of Natural Sciences
> 1900 Parkway, Philadelphia PA 19103-1195, USA
> Tel 215-405-5096
> Fax 215-299-1170
> Secretary, American Malacological Society
> On the web at www.malacological.org
>>>> "Ron G. Noseworthy" <[log in to unmask]> 07/19/08 2:32 PM >>>
> Hi, everyone!
>
> I am presently researching the mollusk faunas of northeast China and South
> Korea.  Are the old marine faunal provinces; eg. Japonic Province,
> Indo-Pacific Province, Boreal Province, still valid?  Are there newer
> divisions that help define regional faunas more precisely?
>
> I have some publications on this subject, but there is some disagreement
> on the number and boundaries of the regions, and the names themselves.  I
> was wondering if there is some consensus on Conch-L as to the latest, most
> accurate delineation of biographical regions, particularly the North
> Pacific.
>
> Any information on this subject will be greatly appreciated.
>
> Regards,
> Ron Noseworthy
>
>
>
>       __________________________________________________________________
> Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the
> boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail.  Click on Options in Mail and switch to
> New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> [log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
> To leave this list, click on the following web link:
> http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
> Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
> click leave the list.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>


Regards,
Charlie
.................................................
Charlie Sturm
Research Associate - Section of Mollusks
Carnegie Museum of Natural History
Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Assistant Professor - Family Medicine
Fellow-American Academy of Family Practice
Fellow-Academy of Wilderness Medicine

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------