[Nebullis]

So, am I getting this? You think this cite should be removed because they collected worms 15 miles from where they originally collected the worms?

No, that was in the original article. The note that AndrewC sniffed out has this title: "Presumptive Rapid Speciation after a Founder Event in a Laboratory Population of Nereis: Allozyme Electrophoretic Evidence Does Not Support the Hypothesis." And, BTW, the two authors besides Weinberg, who was on the original paper, are well respected.

IOW, the hypothesis of rapid speciation does not bear out under scrutiny. I haven't read the note, but as an honest scientist, I would be loathe to use the original Neires example.

[donh]

IOW, the hypothesis of rapid speciation does not bear out under scrutiny.

Oh, why not? Because incompletely speciated populations will re-merge? That doesn't convince me. Do you have something else on the plate?

[donh]

IOW, the hypothesis of rapid speciation does not bear out under scrutiny. I haven't read the note, but as an honest scientist, I would be loathe to use the original Neires example.

Well, having reread it, I will revise my precise of it.

So, you mean because the new wild worms were collected 15 miles from the original location, the hypotheses is rejected by the original author?

Well, yea, it ain't proof, but it ain't a potted plant either.

[AndrewC]

I would be loathe to use the original Neires example.

Thank you, Nebullis, you certainly deserve my respect.