seen there are other proceedings pending with respect to the eastern states were also different subspecies we believe there are no additional proceedings pending with regard to other statements of this time there the services recognized its existence for about fifty years and when we filed the petition they said it doesn't exist that's really the nub of the crux of the crux of the question here now the minute a finding language was added to the act in instructions for their employees as to what would not be appropriate for listing in the example they chose was someone who petition to a human fetus is a substance a species and that  look at the petition we anticipate that there's at least one new genetic study that would be included in that record and i can't talk about it because it's not in the end time and i'm just guessing as to whether there would be more stuff you know offer types we think there would be some more stuff  ignored many statements by its own experts and really it looks like the kind of the selective inclusion and secondly very frequently used the wrong legal standards and they're finding now there's three phrases creature so the court can certainly make that decision on its own that a listing may be warranted then a positive finding should be issue there are problems with the resolution of ambiguities with the definition of subspecies and there is a case where they used years as the legal standard that some paid sixty five hundred sixty eight federal register going up and stead of using and the goal of course of the court just to discern the intent of congress so the service didn't like our deficient areas so they said well let's use this other one specialized technical scientific dictionary and we think that  three i think it's on page sixty five a one there it moved through it that's an intermediate form so we have to subspecies three individuals moving to an intermediate form and we have no studies to stay in that elsewhere in their register level with this legal standard really pretty similar and that is the home builders case national association of home builders the norton three forty three a thirty five and the circuit decided that case in two thousand and three now the service there didn't enter findings on some information and the court had problems with that let me give a couple of examples for example the service gave a map of the range of the  statutes statutory sections are really designed to do different things and so you should interpret the exact same language differently we don't think that comports with the case law and we don't think it even makes and literally every section of the staff should include as well as the policies of the act and action t v a the hill long held case law by the supreme court and you know i don't think you can get a more clear statement of the policies of that act every section language i think is also telling now what we think happened probably by congress when they drafted the section seven amendments which is where that and of course there's a great deal of case law that says that a general terms in different parts of the statute of the same statute or to be given the same meaning and i have not seen any places where that case losses except for  agency crazy furia and then there may be conflicting scientific decisions but we say well that's within the range is there somewhere a definition they used by the department for side and say well i only have now changed our mind and we take a whole different view that's what's troubling me here is that maybe this is the answer but i'm wondering if they really did the kind of analysis that would permit let me just go to that last comment first there are many reasons why a single genetic study may not find genetic differences that actually exist and there are many problems with that study now the behavior  so we can't find it so i would just we we think that we have a very strong case without that document you know the rule but the service issued on says i'm out if they want