[Taxacom] barcode of life

[Stephen Thorpe]

otherwise known as "Pyling it on"! :)




________________________________
From: Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>
To: Kenneth Kinman <kennethkinman at webtv.net>
Cc: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Wed, 30 June, 2010 3:17:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] barcode of life

It's not often that a P.S. is longer than the original text. This is 
entering dangerous territory where you may be competing with Rich 
Pyle. Be careful ....

;-)

At 5:09 PM -1000 6/29/10, Kenneth Kinman wrote:
>  Dear All,
>        I agree that using COI alone, or any other gene
>sequence alone, as the single marker for species delimitation, is a bad
>idea. Until we have whole genome sequences for a very large number of
>species, perhaps a combination of two or three independent genes (of
>which COI is just one) would be a good compromise. What the other one or
>two genes that would best evolve at different rates (than COI), I can't
>say.
>              In any case, I find it
>disturbing that COI gene sequences would too often be used to excuse
>naming new full species, as opposed to subspecies or populations, based
>on some arbitrary number of changes in that single gene. Barcoding for
>identification of populations is probably valuable, but whether those
>populations are subspecies or full species is a whole different matter
>that a single gene cannot possibly determine across the whole gamut of
>organismal evolutionary rates.  Bar Code of Life based on this single
>gene has its place at this time, and may even be useful as a species
>deliimitator in some taxa. However, extrapolating beyond those
>limitations (without corroboration from other lines of evidence) can be
>a risky proposition that will cast doubt upon the work of those who
>delve too quickly into that kind of speculation based solely on a single
>gene sequence.      
>                      ----------Ken
>Kinman                    
>P.S. I am still convinced that the earlier (and still common)
>fascination with the 16S ribosomal gene sequence (used for delimiting
>much broader taxa) was equally suspectible to overextrapolation.  To
>this day, such overextrapolation seems to continue to be a persistent
>impediment to a true understanding of the higher level evolution of
>prokaryotes, early eukaryotes, and even how various subgroups of
>metazoans are related to one another.  Once scientists get addicted to a
>particular gene sequence, it is an extremely difficult addiction (and
>point of view) to argue against.  Once a single gene sequence (COI or
>16S RNA) becomes a favorite of federal funding, there is an INCREASING
>risk that a growing number of researchers will overextrpolate from and
>overinvest funding on those particular genes.  Unfrotunately but not
>surprising.            
>        It's similar to the media's current fascination with the Gulf Oil
>spill, but they will totally ignore other environmental threats until it
>is also too late.  They almost always try to close the barn door well
>after it is too late.  Reactivity continues to be the norm, and
>proactivity is unfortunately relatively uncommon and unprofitable.  I
>guess it is no surprise that big corporations are often tempted to cut
>corners (penny wise, but pound foolish).  Oil companies are the present
>targets of public and media scrutiny, but that only allows Wall Street
>to slip back into their old habits.  Letting the latter take advantage
>of the most recent events shows how the media can overreact to one
>problem and then be totally distracted from covering another major
>problem.  Not to excuse Wall Street greed, but perhaps it is at the root
>of Oil companies cutting corners to keep their stock prices up.  Either
>way, it is overpaid CEOs and their middle men that rake in the absurd
>salaries and stock options, and the real lower-level workers in their
>companies (a very few who become whistle-blowers to abuses) are far less
>well paid and likely to become fired, demoted, or scapegoats for their
>superiors.  Anyway, this is getting a little too far afield from
>taxonomy, but I guess these problems tend to trickle down from
>governmental funding at the top to those getting some benefit (large or
>small) from those spending decisions.  Suffice it to say that
>superificial PR too often prevails and superficial and repetitive media
>is more likely to repeat that PR than to dig deeper for the less
>exciting truth.  In the present scheme of things, anyone who still
>believes that the meek shall inherit the Earth are in for a long wait
>and further disappointment.  PR, money, and media access are still the
>major power brokers, and the meek have little influence whatsoever, and
>then only by rare accidents of very marginal media coverage.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>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