[Taxacom] Propaganda (was: Molecules vs. Morphology)

[Gurcharan Singh]

I don't understand why we debate it as Molecules vs morphology and not 
molecules and morphology. We use plants in our daily life for a variety of 
purpose and recognise them on the basis of morphology. The reliability of 
most morphological features depends on their incorporation into genetic 
material at molecular level. Such molecular changes are more relevant than 
those which don't lead to any observable change. The purpose of Systematics 
is to develop means of identifying, naming and classifying organisms 
preferably in phylogenetic sequence. Molecular data definitely has great 
potential in decifering phylogeny, but this goes along with morphological 
data.
    Let us not fight over molecules vs morphology, rather work for molecules 
and morphology.

Gurcharan Singh
University of Delhi
India
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dr. David Campbell" <amblema at bama.ua.edu>
To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 9:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Propaganda (was: Molecules vs. Morphology)


>> It clearly demonstrates that a sloppy extraction can lead to totally
>> inaccurate results (make sure you aren't extracting genetic material
>> from the stomach or intestines).
>
> It's not just "sloppy" extractions; sometimes the organism (or sample,
> e.g. "it's already dead, so might as well try for DNA" with endangered
> species) makes it difficult for you, and there are also plenty of
> potential intermediate steps between tissue clip and extraction that
> can potentially cause trouble.  Possible contamination by bacteria is
> especially difficult to prevent, since they're pretty much everywhere
> that there are other organisms, plus places unsuitable for anything
> else.
>
> In general, more critical examination of molecular results would be
> advisable.  Not only are there the anomalies due to contamination,
> misidentification, etc., but also just because your latest analysis
> supports a clade does not mean that it is well-supported and the
> definitive final answer.  On the other hand, when a molecular clade is
> unexpected but well-supported, preferably using more than one
> analytical technique, it'd definitely worth going back and looking to
> see if there are morphological, geographical, or other correlates.
>
> -- 
> Dr. David Campbell
> 425 Scientific Collections Building
> Department of Biological Sciences
> Biodiversity and Systematics
> University of Alabama, Box 870345
> Tuscaloosa AL 35487-0345  USA
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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