[Taxacom] DNA only descriptions

[J. Kirk Fitzhugh]

  I tend to agree with this view, which prompts the rhetorical question, 
what is the benefit to knowingly excluding observations when inferring a 
phylogenetic hypothesis? There seems to be an unspoken assumption that a 
phylogeny is some sort of entity divorced from the very activities of 
making observations of the properties of organisms, for which a 
phylogeny has it's only relevant basis. This reduces systematics to 
little more than a cook book, knee-jerk reaction of following 
'established' protocols, without understanding why it's really done.

On 8/19/2010 1:26 PM, John Grehan wrote:
> That perception is probably accurate. After all, if molecules are the Holy Grail why bother with inferior morphology that will take so much more time and effort anyway?
>
> John Grehan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Sergio Vargas
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 4:19 PM
> To: jwhitfie at life.illinois.edu
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] DNA only descriptions
>
> sure!
>
> I think we all are in the same team, and that after years of molecular
> vs morphology we are somewhat close to understand we need ALL possible
> sources of information to describe organisms. I meant, "traditional"
> taxonomists seem to be happy to have molecules but molecular guys
> doesn't even try to include morphology in their analyses... just a
> perception I guess...
>
> sergio