[Greg F]

Actually, speciation is not clear here.

From the article you cited on the mosquito:

“In the light of these differences it is not surprising that some authorities have regarded the subterranean form as a distinct species C. molestus (Miles, 1977a,b; Miles & Patterson, 1979). On the other hand, many authors maintain that the pipiens and molestus forms are the same species, with any differences being purely physiological variation (e.g. Harbach et al., 1984). Between these two extremes are those who consider them as subspecies or semispecies (e.g. Urbanelli et al., 1981; Bullini, 1982). In this study no assumptions have been made about the taxonomic status of the two types of Culex. The terms pipiens and molestus form will be used to distinguish populations on the basis of the traits set out in Table 1.”

So this paper doesn’t prove speciation, it specifically says that speciation is not addressed and is debated. No proof of creation of one species from another. Do you have proof of one species becoming another species?

[ahayes]

The evidence in the paper of absence of interbreeding is consistent with speciation. The disagreement you noted is because C. pipiens has a tendency to colonize underground areas and produce local C. molestus subtypes. The difference is that in other geographic areas (the Mediterranean, for instance) the two populations resulting can interbreed (meaning in the Mediterranean C. pipiens and C. molestus would be "the same species, with any differences being purely physiological variation" or at the most "subspecies or semispecies"). The total absence of interbreeding between London C. molestus and C. pipiens discovered in this paper would classify the two populations as distinct species.

So yes, I do have proof, and there it is.