Andrew, Pete, and Art:

Don't forget subspecies in defining almost identical populations that are
stratigraphically separated.  I've done it myself where I have a major
population of Olives that define a species in the lower Miocene and 1
specimen from the middle Miocene that is almost identical, I called it a
subspecies because of the stratigraphic importance of the species surviving
not only time but also changes in substrate and cooling temperatures - a
true survivor!  Then there are those species which have apparently
transcended time unchanged, one being right up your alley Art , Cirsotrema
dalli Rehder, 1945, from the Chipola formation lower Miocene to the Recent.
 Sorry if my nomenclature is out-of-date.

Paul

At 06:09 PM 8/9/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Pete, you have a good argument. Names are important TO US! But the
>designation of "Sub-species" is important to the understanding of
>evolution. Individuals from a "Mother Species" go off and leave the
>nest. They develop, if they are to survive, characteristics not formerly
>needed: harder percs, different colors, more space inside. It is these
>sub-species, the wandering children, who will be the parents of new
>species, perhaps (and assuredly given enough time) new genera, new
>families.
>        It is clear to me that, without sub-species, evolution grinds to a
>halt.
>        Art
>
>