[Taxacom] DNA only descriptions

[Richard Pyle]

Hi Bob, 

> That's not what I was asking. IMO your 'not easy for us to find or 
> collect specimens in nature' dark matter consists largely of things 
> which can be studied, described, named and classified without 
> sequencing, and sequencing isn't
> *required* to do their taxonomy.

Sorry -- I wrote my email poorly.  I intended to *contrast* the 'not easy
for us to find or collect specimens in nature' from what I described as the
"dark matter".  That is, I think the 'not easy for us to find or collect
specimens in nature' do *not* require DNA so much, as as many of them are
the same sorts of species that folk have been describing for centuries.

This, in contrast to what I meant by "dark matter", which are bacteria and
other tiny things that have very little morphology to go on.  Those are the
ones that I think benefit (perhaps not necessarily "require") from the DNA
stuff.
 
> I say that because I disagree that 'The 1.x million species we already 
> know about are, almost by definition, the
> *easiest* species on the planet to discover, examine, and diagnose.' 
> That would only be true if the discovering and examining effort of the 
> past 250 years had been equitably spread around the globe, with 
> taxonomists not only working everywhere, but with taxonomist numbers 
> 'proportional' to local diversity.

Hmmmm....maybe we have different concepts of the meaning of "easy"; or,
perhaps, to whom it is easy. Species that live in places where practicing
taxonomists have historically not been to are, on average, less easy to
access (by those taxonomists) than the species that live close to them.  I'm
not saying that there are no new morphologically-recognizable new species
yet to be discovered in places where people do have "easy" access to.  But
there are many, many, many macro-morpho spicies that dwell near the bottom
of the 70%+ of the planet's surface area, and/or within the 90%+ inhabitable
volume of the planet, which are decidedly *not* easy to access.  Also, some
terrestrial jungles are hard to access as well.

> I agree 100% with you about prokaryotic life, which is why I said 
> 'flora and fauna'. It's great that Brian Tindall is so patient with 
> zoologists and botanists here on Taxacom.

Agreed -- and sorry I missed the "flora and fauna" qualifier.  My bad; you
are right.

> Eucaryotes are interesting but not really relevant to what Life is 
> *really* all about on this planet. As for genetics as revealing 
> evolutionary history, read the 2 August 2010 entry on ARMANs in 'Small 
> Things Considered':
> http://schaechter.asmblog.org/schaechter/

Will do when I get a chance (on travel now).

Thanks, and sorry for my not-so-well worded, hastily-written taxacom post.

Aloha (from Austin, Texas; very much among the <30% of easily accessible
planet),
Rich