My feeling towards the mutational change would be that it would not be
     cause for a new species.  If the change occurs within an individual in
     a thriving population, then the characteristic would eventually show
     up only occasionally due to dilution in the gene pool.  However if the
     mutation gave it an ecological advantage, then this trait would
     eventually predominate within the colony (much like the text book
     example of the melanic variety of the English moth during the
     industrial revolution). Of couse if found in the fossil record and
     noticably different from the parent, I guess it would be considered a
     different species.  Or, if an individual with this genotypic
     characteristic was geographically isolated and interbreeded then maybe
     it should be classified as a different species.
 
 
     Michael Reagin
     Cleveland Heights, OH
 
 
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Hybrids
Author:  Conchologists of America List <[log in to unmask]> at
Internet-APBiotech-America
Date:    10/2/98 7:59 PM
 
 
> >  Suppose there's one animal group that has high genetic diversity, but
it's
all in unexpressed DNA, so they all look alike. (Yes, there are animals
like this.) Then, let us suppose, there's a mutation in one gene, but it's
a very important gene, and the animal's offspring is completely changed.
Miraculously, they survive and breed. Is this a new species, based on a
large morphologic difference and just one important genetic difference?
Even if the variation of DNA within the parent group is higher? < <
 
 
I would classify new species if they could not mate with the parent species.
THat is an excellent example of Cladogenesis. You start with one parent
species and through morphological change you get more than one. Thats what
adds to the increase of Diversity. It only takes the one small mutation of an
allele to make this happen.
 
Sarah Watson