 If there is not any other question about this talk, I think we can move to discussion. So I think we can spend the next few minutes sort of having a broad discussion about both of the talks or also the talks of yesterday. There is an interest in that. So if anyone wants to comment, I think I've said it. Yes, as people think about comments, I like to relate the two talks today in some broad speculation, a little bit following yesterday we had some speculation so why not today. We saw two systems in which the dissimilarity has to be related at some scales to some form of negative frequency dependence that forms niches. That is where we get what what Daniel called over dispersion and ultimately and we also saw yesterday this very interesting remark that the strain variation was very important to the interactions that had to do with coexistence in the picture communities. So of course today we, the talks were at different scales of organization, competition of strains within species and, and essentially interactions between species in a forest. Whether we want to make the distinctions or not what we have is the systems in which ecology and evolution has to set some form of balancing selection through ecological interactions to allow very high diversity there is no other mechanism, and I don't mean specific mechanisms whatever they are they don't need to be just competition. They have to set up some form of advantage of the rare disadvantage of the common. And this brings us I guess to the analogy between the talks which would be like what sets, what sets the diversity of the pool, whether it's the local pool, or the regional pool I think the two are very connected in a community or metapopulation concept. So, I guess what the second talk was saying is that any mechanism that relies on this negative frequency dependent selection over long evolutionary time should just should have this threshold I mean that if we go from this very particular case of the var genes to, to the genes that encode traits, the traits that underlie the, what you call over dispersion. No, yes, over this where I get confused between over and under dispersion but I guess, if we think of those traits, right, and the size, if we want to build a very diverse system, we will need a very diverse pool. In the, in the variation of the traits, not just the number of traits, but the variation the genetic and phenotypic variation of the traits, and we are saying that the intensity of interactions which is the intensity of transmission in our system. This basically influences crossing a threshold below which you can no longer build essentially the pieces the essential pieces to build the phenotypes, with which we interact. So, you wouldn't know because the demographic threshold is much farther. This is not a demographic problem with extinction. This is a problem in building and assembling high diversity. And I would love to think about whether, for example, in a forest system, the frequency dependent that is Johnson Connell type with natural enemies such as insects may live in a very high space of variation and if we push the system to interact too little. So if we reduce biomass or we reduce area, we reduce species, we are not just losing species we are losing the pieces, the genetic variation that allows us to build a hyper diverse system. That's the analogy. Maybe, maybe it doesn't work. But, but I actually think it should. And that's the, that's the connection there. So many questions about how you connect the within species variation to the between and the role of those levels of diversity. Yeah, then wants to comment. Yeah, sure. I mean, I think Mercedes that's that's a great point and I think leads back to one of the other questions about the role of phylogeny because I think. The systems that have very little intraspecific variation, then presumably they're going to be more prone toward to species level sort of pruning of these species in these systems. And it's a bit of a challenge where we impute traits like I did because we don't actually know what the true underlying intraspecific variation is in these systems. But presumably that that must be a huge part of what links trait diversity to species diversity. So in these systems if you imagine you have a range of phenotypes of different traits, and they have to have some minimum separation in trait space to survive you know there's there's some mechanism pushing them far apart. Then you can presumably pack in way more species in these systems, and still be able to satisfy this minimum criteria of, you know, minimal species similarity. You have really high intraspecific variation. And presumably that is to some extent what's happening in the tropics or something like that we're in these systems you know you see three or four or 500 different species in the same region compared to six or seven in the for real for us. But I also wonder if there's some. I don't really know the theory behind this but maybe someone else who does but I would imagine in more optimal conditions there's more options for for phenotypic variation than your otherwise might have and really stressful conditions. You know if you think of like cacti or something in deserts they have to have really really strong clear set of traits. And I wonder if the neutrality in some systems allows phenotypes to sort of fluctuate more randomly which then makes them able to survive a little bit in these systems. But it's a really cool thing and I think as anyone who studies intraspecific variation it's really hard to link that also to intraspecific variation, unless you're really going to want to measure all these things individually. Anyone else want to comment or to add something. So, well I think also in the interest of time we can move on. So, thank you for the talks. So what we're going to do now is that we're going to take a break of 10 minutes.