Nhu wrote: "Whether it is a good species remain to be seen as morefield and DNA studies are completed. I'm a student of the molecular age, so I will wait for that data." Nhu, that statement really intrigues me. Nhu, I'm not s student of the molecular age. Help me understand how DNA or other molecular studies might resolve questions of species identity, resolve them in a way not available to traditional morphological studies (which, to my mind, are not suitable to resolving this question).. Here's what I mean. If we accept a species concept based on a shared gene pool, it follows that similarities - at the gross morphological level or at the more finely granular molecular level - do not in themselves prove that two entities are conspecific. . For now, I still take the point of view that what we learn from molecular studies is just another sort of morphological data. Because species is not a morphological concept but rather a concept based on a shared gene pool, morphological studies at any level of granularity cannot provide the definitive answer to questions of what things are conspecific. What can you say to persuade me otherwise? Jim McKenney