>  In the same kind of ideas, what is this story about chimps belonging to  Homo, or Homo to Pan ? that's of high interest!
>  Pan (Homo) sapiens (Linnaeus, 1758) or back to Homo (Pan) troglodytes  Linnaeus, 1758 ? That is the question.

Homo would be the genus, since Linnaeus assigned chimps and humans to Homo.  This would also place a bunch of fossils, currently assigned to extinct genera, into Homo.
Despite relatively small genetic differences, there are strong morphological differences between Homo and Pan, not surprising given the very different locomotion and other habits.  Small genetic difference alone is not adequate justification to synonymize two genera.

Similar problems arise for mollusks.  Some things seem clearly distinguishable morphologically, yet they have minimal genetic distance; others seem nearly identical (and may interbreed) yet have very different DNA sequences.

A genus is an arbitrary unit, and degree of variation within and among species varies, so there's no rule that says how much genetic or morphological variation can be in a genus.

    Dr. David Campbell
    Old Seashells
    University of Alabama
    Biodiversity & Systematics
    Dept. Biological Sciences
    Box 870345
    Tuscaloosa, AL  35487-0345 USA
    [log in to unmask]

That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------