[Taxacom] DNA only descriptions

[John Grehan]

Some interesting comments, but I have some contrary views inserted
below.

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kim van der
Linde

> It is really easy to sit down with a bunch of people, find the worst 
> offending molecular articles and use that to dismiss everything. It is

> easy to do the opposite as well.

Agreed - it's the deeper issues of similarity and relationship that need
to be considered.

> In my opinion, the crucial aspect we should not forget is that we use 
> morphology as a proxy for genetic differences. 

Yes - but what are the 'genetic' differences? 

> Really, the whole morphology vs molecular discussion is so passe. 

Really, the whole dismissal could be regarded the same way.

"Sure, individuals can keep sitting on their little islands, but reality
is 
that the world moves forward."

Really?

> In most of those studies, there is no dispute about what to use as a 
> basis, the molecular tree is used to map the morphological traits
over, 
> not the other way around 

And therein lies the problem

> Only when it is accepted by our peers, and used accordingly, we know
that > out *proposal* has merits as long as nothing better comes along. 

Not necessarily. It might just mean that it agrees with prevailing
views, not that its scientific merits are necessarily measured by
acceptance. After all, a flat earth was quite acceptable for a long
time.

> So, instead of fighting about morphology vs molecular, let's all do
our 
> job with the tools we have at hand and let's keep an open mind to what

> other have to offer as well, even if that means that you might be
wrong. 

So here the proclamation is that one must accept the tools to hand and
not dispute any of them.

> In an upcoming era in which a genome can be sequenced in one day for
less 
> than $100, you bet that it is going to dominate the field of
systematics. 

Flat earth syndrome again

> The question we should ask ourselves is how do we integrate that the
best 
> way.

Or we might ask whether one source necessarily precludes another.

John Grehan