----------
> From: David Campbell <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Subspecies (aka Internet Message)
> Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 3:38 PM
>
> >Hi Tom, Hi Mark.
> >
> >I am not a respected malacologist..heck, I'm not even a disrespected
> >one..but I share Tom's idea. Why wouldn't subspecies appear in the same
> >area as parent species..or at the very least in overlapping areas?
> >Subspecies apparently share some of the same characteristics as the
> >parent species..I can see where geographical separation could have
> >caused some of the evolutionary differences that would split them into
> >subspecies, but there must be some common link or why would they be
> >designated subspecies instead of new species?
> >
> >Patti "I am so confused" Lounsbury
> >New Mexico
> >
>
> The basic idea is that if two forms belong to the same species, they
should
> be able to interbreed.  If they occur in the same place at the same time
> and interbreed, then the genetic characteristics should be mixed
together.
> If two distinct forms occur in the same place at the same time, either
it's
> just different minor forms of one species, or two distinct species.  This
> is why geographic (or chronological, in the case of fossils) separation
is
> thought to be necessary for subspecies.
>
> However, in defense of sympatric subspecies, it seems possible that we
have
> not yet noticed what keeps the two subspecies apart and that individuals
> that seem to us to be in the same place and time really do keep apart for
> some reason.   Or we could have just happened to sample the boundary
region
> between two subspecies.
>
> David Campbell
>
> "Old Seashells"
>
> Department of Geology
> CB 3315 Mitchell Hall
> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
> Chapel Hill NC 27599-3315
> USA
>
> 919-962-0685
> FAX 919-966-4519
>
> "He had discovered an unknown bivalve, forming a new genus"-E. A. Poe,
The
> Gold Bug