I can't remember if this was described as a subspecies of corona or a full
species.  I don't have the reference handy.  Also, it's sprucecreekensis
(with the s on the end).
What makes a species a species is hotly debated.  It all depends on what
species concept you adhere to and none of the definitions in current use
are infallible.  Here's mine....if it's consistantly different .....it
should be named.  What does consistantly mean?  Obviously, you need more
than one or just a few specimens to know that.  The more localities
(populations?) you have represented in your samples, the more you'll learn
about variability of any character(s) you wish to examine.  If the
populations(?) are different AND if you look at enough (and the right ones)
characters, the consistant ones will fall out and become apparent.  Then
you can pass along your observations to others in a meaningful and concise
manner so that anyone can identify the creatures.
I would not utilize ecology or lifestyle as criteria for describing new
species for one reason.....  I firmly believe that if populations are doing
drastically different things to get through their tragic lives, differences
in shell and/or soft anatomy WILL exist.  You may have to dig for them, but
the differences will be there.
 
Kurt
 
At 11:53 AM 4/5/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Just a question, and I'm asking this out of ignorance:
>If we are talking here about the Florida Crown Conch -  Melongena corona,
>wouldn't the subspecies name be Melongena corona sprucecreekensi?
>Can a population having different habits or lifestyle from the originally
>named species be a criterion for a new species or does there have to be a
>physiological difference as well, either in the soft parts or the hard shell?
>How much of a difference?  I bet this topic is hotly debated.
>