<span>Notice a couple of things
different between (A) and (B). It was NOT the first time a biologist
proposed that species changed through time (so it's not B). But it
finally *solidified* that idea by giving "change through time"
(evolution) a MECHANISM. It gave a plausible explanation for WHY
species change over time, in a testable way that made sense and had
evidence to support it.
So it finally dismissed the idea that species are constant.
It also emphasized that the simple presence of *variation* within a population was a key reason for evolution.
While we're at it ... (C) is wrong because it's not *individuals* that
acclimate (adapt) to their environment, but the population (the species)
as a whole.
And (D) is wrong because it had nothing to do with economics or the monarchy.</span>
Answer:Species Dynamics. This theory is quite straightforward: species that can colonize new areas faster and reproduce in greater number than they become extinct have the greatest chances to thrive. The tropics offer favorable conditions for these conditions to be met.
There Is More Diversity Near the Equator. ... Another argues that more solar energy is received around the equator, allowing for greater species richness. A third points out that equatorial tropics are the largest biome, so it makes sense that there would be more species.
Explanation:
ATP is used in cellular activity in living organisms as a source of energy.
