[Taxacom] Taxonomy and GMOs

[Richard Jensen]

Ah, but Nature operated differently: if the natural equivalent of a GMO 
could not exist on its own, it was removed by the filter of selection. 
Can we apply the same standard to artificial GMOs? If they can survive 
and maintain themselves natural environments without human intervention, 
then perhaps they qualify as species. But if, as is the case with a 
great many domesticated organisms, they cannot make it through the 
filter of natural selection, then they may not deserve species status - 
they are human-created and human-maintained cultivars.

I don't know the answer to this, but can Primula kewensis, a spontaneous 
polyploid derived from an artificial cross between two other species, 
exist on its own, or is it only found as a garden flower? If the former, 
then it could be viewed as a good species (using BSC, if nothing else); 
if the latter, then I would think of it as a cultivar, not a species.

Cheers,

Dick J


Richard Jensen, Professor
Department of Biology
Saint Mary’s College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Tel: 574-284-4674



Ashley Nicholas wrote:
> Dear Taxacomers,
>  
> I dread to open this Pandora's box but I have recently been approached
> for advice by someone drawing up legislation about the naming of GMOs.
> If a GMO becomes reproductively isolated from its parent species (but
> can reproduce with itself) does it not become a new species that now
> needs to be named and described? If so does someone doing this then
> follow the respective Codes of Nomenclature or do special procedures and
> naming practices need to be followed? Do we treat them the same as
> 'normal' species (whatever that means!) or do they deserve to be treated
> differently as we do for horticultural plants - in which cultivars need
> to be registered? I have been unable to find any published literature on
> this and could find nothing in the ICBN Vienna code.  A colleague also
> tells me the Horticultural Code does not deal with this matter either.
>  
> This not only has implications for taxonomy and classification, but
> also for the new Phylocode - how is it going to place and contextualise
> these GMO species which can involve lateral gene transfer from very
> unrelated organisms? I try to convince myself that I should not be too
> shocked by all this given that nature has been creating GMOs for
> billions of years. 
>  
> Any advice and published references would be gratefully appreciated.
> Ashley Nicholas
>  
>  
>  
>  
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Associate Professor & Curator Ward Herbarium
> School of Biological & Conservation Science
> Westville Campus
> University of KwaZulu-Natal,
> Private Bag X54001, 
> Durban, 4000, South Africa
> Tel.:+27-31-260 7719  Fax.: +27-31-260 2029
> nicholasa at ukzn.ac.za 
> http://www.ukzn.ac.za/Biology/AshleyNicholas506.aspx
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Aldous Huxley said:
> It is a little embarrassing that, after 45 years of research and study,
> the best advice I can give to people is to be a little kinder to each
> other
> *-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Please find our Email Disclaimer here: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer/
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>