[Taxacom] DNA only descriptions

[Richard Pyle]

Hi Bob, 

I have not followed this thread (only read your message below), and as
usual, I am in almost complete agreement with you.

One point:

> But most of the Earth's described flora and fauna 
> was named by people with simple equipment. That's more than 
> 1.5 million species. Are the remaining X million to be 
> discovered and documented in some way qualitatively 
> different, so that sequences are *required* to distinguish them?

Yes, I think they are qualitatively different.  

The 1.x million species we already know about are, almost by definition, the
*easiest* species on the planet to discover, examine, and diagnose.  Many of
the X million as-yet undiscovered/described species are so simply because
they live in places that are hard for us to get to (i.e., not "cryptic"
species in the sense you used it -- well-known populations whose genetic
distinctions are cryptic to us -- but "cryptic" in the sense I think of that
word -- not easy for us to find or collect specimens in nature).  

However, I think the biodiversity "dark matter", representing the elephant
in the room of undocumented biodiversity, are the microbial things
(particularly the "unculturables") that really are much easier to discover
and distinguish with the aid of DNA sequences (see Craig Venter's work on
sequencing the oceans).

Not sure if this is what you were asking.

Aloha,
Rich