Dear Art,
I have seen no postings on your question so I will make some brief
comments.  There are no standards written in a book, i.e, 2 character
difference = subspecies, 3 character difference = species, etc.  It is up
to the last reviewer(s).  I don't believe that there should be either.
Some people have attempted this in the past.  A taxon should be
characterized by consistant differences, no matter what differences those
may be, shell morphology, anatomy, DNA.  The reviewer must be able to
convey these differences to the reader.  The Golden Rule concerning
taxonomy is "Know thy creature".  If one does his/her homework these
characters will be discernible and explainable.  The lack of homework is
usually immediately apparent by others with even a little knowledge of the
group.  We have all seen this happen and it is unfortunate.  Characters one
examines differ over genus/family, etc. lines, but the deductive process
does not.  For those not involved in this process it may be difficult to
understand why it takes so darn long to get something published.  Not
counting other work-related duties, the process is usually quite tedious
and to know one's creature in a sufficient manner to properly address the
problems may take months or perhaps, years.
 
I hope this helps.  There is no magic dust, no mystery and really no hard
and fast rules (except in the nomenclatural code), just a bunch of hard work.
 
Kurt
 
At 10:55 AM 1/21/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear Porcine avionic supporters;-
>     The responce to my questions has been terrific. I now know more
>than I did about Olives, Rivers, and Endangerment. What I really
>wanted to know about Dr. Zeigler was more about the man than his book.
>
>   But that wasn't the point. All I wanted to do was lead the way
>suggesting new topics.
>    Here's something to think about. Lumpers and Splitters: Is the
>designation of species determined solely by our perception of it? Is
>there a standard established to tell us when shell characteristics
>(or how many variants) warrent the designation of "new species".
>Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but I would think "species"
>would have a more scientific backing. It does seem that the eye of
>the beholder determines speciation. If no such standard exists, can
>we establish one? Will such a standard vary from family to family?
>              Art
>