[Taxacom] molecular species description

[Stephen Thorpe]

Hi Geoff,

I hope you find this exchange wierdly entertaining, for otherwise it  
is just pathetic! I was NOT wrong about what you quote me as saying  
below! I WAS told on good authority that ... Furthermore, I was told  
this well after 2000. The "good authority" may in fact be wrong, I  
don't know, but I don't think that the paper by Trewick (2000)  
conclusively settles the issue at all! However, I will do my little  
back-pedal/dodge once again and say that I personally don't know  
enough about molecular taxonomy to be a good judge of the issue, but  
then I never claimed to - I responded to a request for examples of  
species characterised purely molecularly, and I added an unattributed  
pers. comm. to the effect that those species were now unidentifiable  
even molecularly. If you see value in what Trewick did in 1998, then  
you are entitled to your opinion, but please don't try to defend your  
liking for molecular taxonomy by screaming "defamation!" when someone  
else criticises a published work involving it! However, I'm not one to  
take offence or let minor arguments fester, so please feel free to  
discuss this or any other topic with me, as I am still fully open to  
your input and ideas, provided only that I don't accused of  
"defamation" or suchlike ...

Cheers,

Stephen

Quoting Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>:

>
> On Sun, August 9, 2009 3:16 pm, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>>> Wrong again, eh!
>>
>> Wrong about the University he works for - yes. My apologies! Wrong
>> again? Well, I have been wrong before now on several occasions, but
>> I'm not sure which one(s) you are referring to exactly?
>
> I need to remind you?
>
> [S. Thorpe, 7 Aug] "It is a bit dated now, but I'm told on good authority
> that the species described therein are totally unrecognisable today
> morphologically or molecularly!"
>
> And I pointed to the 2000 paper. And so I think we're on the 2nd lap of
> the same track, so bye for now. Impressive back-pedalling & dodging
> recently on your part though. :-)
>
> Geoff
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.