[Taxacom] DNA only descriptions

[Stephen Thorpe]

>Sorry, no, you can describe a species using DNA only. It is desirable, no, but 
>we could do it. And with cryptic species, that is exactly what we do

Yes, for "cryptic species" (if they exist), descriptions (by definition) have to 
be using DNA only

But suppose a new species of elephant were discovered with two trunks (not an 
aberration, but a good character) - are you suggesting that the new species 
should be described by DNA ONLY?? Diagnostic characters; AAGCTTAGCCTTTTA ... !




________________________________
From: Kim van der Linde <kim at kimvdlinde.com>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: Kenneth Kinman <kennethkinman at webtv.net>; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Sat, 21 August, 2010 11:58:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] DNA only descriptions



On 8/20/2010 7:35 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>> In my opinion, the crucial aspect we should not forget is that we use 
>>morphology
>> as a proxy for genetic differences
> 
> IT DEPENDS WHAT ONE IS DOING! Descriptive taxonomy, or "systematics"?
> Descriptive taxonomists would still describe morphology even if systematists
> knew EVERYTHING about the genetics ...

Sorry, no, you can describe a species using DNA only. It is desirable, no, but 
we could do it. And with cryptic species, that is exactly what we do.

Kim
-- http://www.kimvdlinde.com