Hear, hear.  It will only be one small part of the puzzle.  And two closely
related species could well have very, very similar DNA.  Plus we have heard
before from the geology contingent about maintaining a connection with
fossil species where DNA work is not possible.  Shell and animal anatomy
must remain key to taxonomic decisions.  I guess the DNA can be one of those
clinching arguments; if the shells look different and the soft parts are
different AND the DNA is different -- then they must be different species!

Tom E.

-----Original Message-----
From: Conchologists of America List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of Monfils, Paul
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 10:33 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [CONCH-L] DNA question


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?

Paul M.