Molecular taxonomy: on way out?
releech at TELUSPLANET.NET
Sat Jul 23 07:23:47 CDT 2005
If molecular biologists have a contribution to make to classification
schemes, and perhaps even to phylogenetic schemes, why oh why
cannot they work hand in glove with Darwinian biologists? That is
the way it should have been.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Les Watson" <leswatson at WESTNET.COM.AU>
To: <TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU>
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: Molecular taxonomy: on way out?
> Response to Richard Zander:
>>Hang on, now. It's the interrelationships of the genes, promoters,
>>regulators, and whatnot that determine the phenotype which is the focus of
>>evolutionary selection. I get an implication from your sentence (below),
>>Les, that ALL available information is now relatively accessible.
>>Phylogenetic analyses that evaluate accumulations of mutations in junk DNA
>>may not be tracking phenotypic expressions of variously regulated exons.
>>Interrelationships ("phenomics") are hardly relatively accessible at the
> Well, it is relatively accessible, in the sense that the "whatnots" are
> being sorted out - it's only a matter of time. Meanwhile, good taxonomic
> classifications (when accompanied by detailed group descriptions!) should
> helping point molecular biologists in the right directions for getting
> handles on them. In this connection, I can't resist drawing attention to
> fact that the inappropriateness of their term "junk DNA" (belatedly being
> debunked) was rather strongly indicated by taxonomic evidence that was
> available before the so-called junk was 'discovered'!
> Dr. Les Watson
> 10, Maitland Avenue
> Little Grove, Albany, Email: leswatson at westnet.com.au
> WA 6330, Australia Phone: +61 (8) 98 44 4398
More information about the Taxacom