"Monfils, Paul" wrote:
>
> DNA sequencing is often spoken of as though it is the "final solution" to
> questions of taxonomic placement.  I can see that such studies might reveal
> high-level relationships (or lack thereof) that might not be expressed in
> morphology.  For example, it might reveal that a shell currently classified
> as a volute, because it looks like one, is actually a Marginella.  However,
> when you get down to decisions at the species or even subspecies level, how
> is DNA analysis any more objective than morphologic analysis?  Once you know
> the degree of difference between the DNA of two similar forms, doesn't
> someone have to make a subjective decision as to whether that degree of
> difference warrants specific separation or not?  And aren't we necessarily
> going to end up with a camp of taxonomic DNA lumpers and a camp of taxonomic
> DNA splitters, just as we have traditionally had with morphological studies?

It's worse. First the taxonomists will have to agree on a reference
sequence for each species. How would ya like to serve on THAT committee?