[Taxacom] Propaganda

[Kipling (Kip) Will]

Some recommended reading on those topics...

DNA Sequences in Taxonomy: Opportunities and Challenges by Rudolf Meier.
Chapter 7, in "The New Taxonomy" Q.D. Wheeler (Editor) 2008.

Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> I think the debate (or "fight") is over the appropriate relative 
> proportions of molecular vs morphological. The Xenoturbella example
>  perhaps betrays a tendency of some to rush ahead with molecular work
>  as if it holds all the answers. Most worrying in this regard,
> although I haven't looked at the details, and only know of it second
> hand, is an apparently MASSIVELY funded project in Canada which
> (again apparently) advertises itself something along the lines of "no
> more need for museum specimens, DNA barcoding is all we need"! The
> fact that funders are willing to invest massive amounts on
> development of such ideas is disturbing!
> 
> 
> Quoting Gurcharan Singh <singhg at sify.com>:
> 
>> 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
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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
> 


-- 
Kipling W. Will
Associate Professor/Insect Systematist
Associate Director,Essig Museum of Entomology

mail to:
137 Mulford Hall
ESPM Dept.- Organisms & Environment Div.
University of California
Berkeley, California 94720

phone 510-642-4296
fax 510-643-5438