[Taxacom] molecular nonsense?
Thomas G. Lammers
lammers at uwosh.edu
Thu Nov 6 09:28:11 CST 2008
At 08:49 AM 11/6/2008, John Grehan wrote:
>Am I the only one on this list that thinks this molecular stuff is nutty?
In and of itself, no, I don't consider the data nutty. It is data like any
other; data is data. But it has to be used intelligently, not slavishly
Ever since molecular biology became relatively easy to do, everyone and his
uncle is doing it. In the words of Henry Gregor Felsen, "A fool with
enough money can buy anything he wants; however, he is no less a
fool." Some workers have the biological background and expertise and
insight and discretion to use molecularly data intelligently, some simply
do not. A tool is only as strong as the workman who wields it.
Your current approach in this orangophilic crusade of yours is likely a
smart one. Look at the data, look at the original studies and see what
they actually say. That's what science is about: repeatability and
scrutiny, peer review. I have no dog in this fight, but I am always
interested to see facts and sound methodology win out over wishful thinking
Thomas G. Lammers, Ph.D.
Associate Professor and Curator of the Herbarium (OSH)
Department of Biology and Microbiology
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901-8640 USA
e-mail: lammers at uwosh.edu
Plant systematics; classification, nomenclature, evolution, and
biogeography of the Campanulaceae s. lat.
"Today's mighty oak is yesterday's nut that stood his ground."
More information about the Taxacom