[Taxacom] FW: DNA only descriptions

[Richard Zander]

I think we are too focused on different trees in the forest. If we base classification on evolution, and a decent apprehension of evolution requires many different techniques and angles of investigation, then it isn't morphology versus DNA. Morphology alone isn't enough to fully characterize a taxon in an evolutionary context. All sorts of biosystematic and genetic data help characterize a taxon.

Of course, morphology alone is usually useful for identification, and DNA isn't. 

 
* * * * * * * * * * * * 
Richard H. Zander 
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA 
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm



-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Tom Schweich
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 6:54 PM
To: Taxacom
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