OK, Good, glad you will be joining us. I also agree with your comments on foundation species as stated below. Also, in the same conversation with Steve Shuster in which he related the issues about Kim, he said that he was anxious to get Eric back on track with the ECD. I told him of your interest in finishing it off. Before you do too much more, it would be good if you contacted Steve and/or Eric. Steve totally agrees that the ms is too important to let it languish more, so he is supportive in doing whatever it takes to get it out. Regarding genetic covariances between species, the aphid/cottonwood and the mite/cottonwood examples are best. Although I haven’t seen Kim’s latest, Luke’s published work is best. I wish we had a lot more, but unfortunately, we don’t. The cut-off of a species being a foundation species may best be defined by the interaction network. If you took all the species in one of your analyses, what would the shape of your distribution be? Bridgeland et al. (2010) had 700 species but only a handful were strong interactors as he defined them. I would like to see several metrics involved such as your network analysis, removal experiments as we have done several times, biomass, addition experiments. I think that generally, these several metrics would agree, but I’ve never seen anyone do it. See you in a few.