[Taxacom] DNA only descriptions

[Robin Leech]

No, Kim, that is NOT what you do.  You are using all the base
morphology information to give you a very select set of specimens
to examine for their DNA.

All the data referring to all the rest of the hierarchy (Phylum down
to genus) and relationships has been given to you on a platter.

And even more, all the other species in the genus, which are known
morphologically, have already been separated away from the select
set of specimens on which you are going to perform your DNA testing.
These specimens are, apparently, morphologically indestinguishable.

Now, having run your DNA test, let us say that you find what amounts
to 3 distinct species.

This is where I would like to come in and as a morphological taxonomist,
examine separately the 3 species, to look for morphological features missed
previously.

I feel that this is where the DNA boys have a distinct role to play, and one
that dovetails into the morphology.  When I find the morphological 
features -
and trust me, I will - you and I will then describe 3 species.  We will use
all the morphological features to do this, but we will also mention the DNA
as part of the process.  The DNA analysis is not the process in and of 
itself.
It is but a wee step.

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kim van der Linde" <kim at kimvdlinde.com>
To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; "Kenneth Kinman" <kennethkinman at webtv.net>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 5:58 PM
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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>