Hi RAZD,

I've been reading your contributions, thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge. As I've only completed rudimentary study in biology they can push the boundaries of my understanding at times. If you have a spare moment, could you help fill in the blanks with regard to sympatric speciation?

I can understand the application of this particular theory to plants, as they are more prone to polyploidism, but I can't get my head around it's application to the animal kingdom. How, within a population, could a big enough subset of individuals evolve so differently to the extent that they form their own species, when they share the same environment and pressures, etc?

Perhaps my view of speciation is too linear. Is this model initially niche-driven (for the animal kingdom) rather than gene-driven? And if so, does this show us that there can be more than one niche within a population?

Or is this model the product of a variance of phenotype and niche, i.e. the variance in phenotype open up a new niche? In which case this would explain why it is so rare in the animal kingdom?

I don't want to derail this thread and so if you think this takes more than one or two replies I'll start a new one.

I look forward to your next installment.

Thanks <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Kakariki