[Taxacom] Propaganda

[Stephen Thorpe]

more reading:

http://www.dnabarcoding.ca/pa/ge/news/in-the-media


Quoting "Kipling (Kip) Will" <kipwill at berkeley.edu>:

> 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
>



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