[Taxacom] FW: DNA only descriptions

[Stephen Thorpe]

there are two possible views here:

the "radical view" (unclear if anyone holds it): forget morphology and describe 
everything only using DNA

the "less radical view": for cryptic species only (which are morphologically 
identical), describe them as distinct new species only using DNA

I have some problems even with the latter, as in practice most funding in the 
present climate will go to splitting hairs (or double helices!) and describing 
cryptic species, while the many remaining undescribed genera, even, of 
morphologically distinctive organisms will continue to be ignored ...

 



________________________________
From: Tom Schweich <tas27 at schweich.com>
To: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Mon, 16 August, 2010 11:54:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] FW: DNA only descriptions

A. Nonymous wrote:
>  I´ll begin by saying that I fully agree that a morphological description in 
>Zoology/Botany is necessary, but **only** because of the issue of accessibility 
>and retrievability. -- Emphasis added.  
>

Can you imagine an edition of Peterson's Western Birds containing only 
DNA descriptions ?  How about usage in the field as a reason to have a 
morphological description? 

-- 
Tom Schweich KJ6BIT tas27 at schweich.com
http://www.schweich.com
http://twitter.com/schweich


_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these 
methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  
your search terms here