<2. If they are separated geographically and show other differences,
you
> might as well separate them at the species-level and forget about
> subspecies entirely.>
>
        I don't understand the above statement.  Does this mean that
geographically separated populations should be described as subspecies even
if they DON'T show any other differences??  This would result in hundreds of
subspecies of widespread species like Cypraea lynx or Cymatium pileare.  I
don't think that was what you intended to say John, but it is what the above
statement seems to say.
        Wouldn't it be more correct to say that BOTH geographical separation
AND "other differences" are required to justify subspecies status?

        Regards,
        Paul M.