Dear Bob, Ed Richard & All,
I imagine everyone at this point would like to see somehting done about
clearing the smoke on this. By popular demand and like I mentioned, give the
older generation of scientist their due. Give them a break
ICNZ should not be blamed for this this either. From what I heard they are
undermaned, skelaton staff with a huge workload, that will take decades to
complete.
My suggestion is for a couple of the more senior conchologist, get together
and try to resolve this, find a solution. The problem can only get worse.
not better.
Like I stated in my email yesterday. This Form of a species is all around
us, wether we collectors, museum's, dealers are aware of the problem or not.
The problem's here to stay and can only get worse.

Bob and Ed, made very good points and should be considered. in their emails
below, Isolation, genetic changes, under sea ridges, and I believe Richard
Goldberg & Mike Severns published an artical on " Isolation & Evolution" on
this topic.

George


>MessageHello Bob,
>There are several theories of speciation. We usually consider that new
>species evolve from the existing species after one or several populations
>of a species become separated from the mother species by different reasons.
>Very simplified, a long process of speciation consists of genetic changes
>in the separated population, which were hardly possible before its
>separation because these changes (mutation etc.) were neutralized by
>interbreeding. Separation may have different forms: in land snails there
>may be different barriers (mountains, new cities etc); in marine molluscs
>geographical isolation is simple to prove. Isolation by different depth is
>also works but it is difficult to prove. How can one prove that molluscs
>inhabiting water at 30 m depth are really isolated from other molluscs of
>the same species living in shallow water? Where is a barrier? At -25, 50,
>70, 140 m?
>After separation is demonstrated, the second criterion should be checked:
>whether the majority of molluscs in a population differs by some shell
>character from other populations of the same species. For example, people
>often say that cowries from deep water are more globose; all specimens?
>which percentage? I have never seen
>statistical data confirming this.
>Ed
>
>
>
>   I've enjoyed this thread. Eduard, your explanation is very clear. Though
>I've often wondered about this. Why is it so important to place emphasis
>upon geographic separation? Isn't it possible to have a population that
>meets all criteria for a subspecies except it is separated another way
>(such as depth) while sharing essentially the same geographic range of the
>species?
>
>   Maybe this is a stretch on my part but it seems conceivable. If not a
>subspecies (or a form), what would this population be?
>
>   Cheers,
>   Bob

>
>
>     Dear all,
>     It is usually accepted that subspecies are geographically separated
>population of the same species; in other words two or more subspecies
>cannot be recognized in the same geographical area. Subspecies must differ
>from other populations of the same species by at least one diagnostic shell
>characteristic. This means that the majority of specimens of a subspecies
>(about 70%) differ by certain shell character from other populations of the
>same species.
>
>     Logically, this means that an author of a description of a subspecies
>must prove that, first, a new taxon is a population inhabiting certain are;
>second, that this population is geographically separated from other
>populations of the same species; third, that a new subspecies differs by at
>least one substantial statistical shell characteristic from other
>populations of the same species. Statistical shell characteristics must be
>calculated after examining large batches of shells. It is hardly correct to
>describe a new subspecies after examining of 3-4 and even 20 sporadically
>found shells. If diagnostic characteristics are given in a description of a
>new subspecies its separating presents lesser problems in the future.
>
>
>
>     Forms are regularly found unusual shells differing from "typical"
>shells of a population in shape, color, pattern or other characters. Forms
>are sporadically or regularly found in different populations of a species
>and sometimes can be found in large numbers. Unlike subspecies, several
>different forms of a single species can be found together in the same
>locality and may comprise a considerable part of that population; they may
>not be separated geographically.
>
>     Knowing forms is not only interesting to collectors; each bit of
>information about mollusc may be useful if this information is correct and
>published properly.
>
>     Ed

_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office
Live! http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------