Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sat, 8 Jun 2002 15:12:57 +1200 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>I offer this in the argument of "what physical features can be used to
>determine a species," because I believe you have to take each family/genus
>individually to decide what features are determinant as well as use a
>mixture of physical traits. For years people have (overly) relied upon
>radular characteristics - sometimes to the exclusion of all other
>characteristics. In fact the 1866-1893 work by Troschel and Thiele has 50+
>pages devoted to classifying the Neritidae on just radular characteristics.
>The problem is, the radula can vary within a single species of nerite so
>much that it could be linked with a number of other, closely related
>species!
>
>I am not saying we need a mystical "gestalt" process for species
>identification - but we do need to look at all that is available to us.
>This includes the supposed magic bullet of DNA. As this becomes more
>available it should be considered just another useful marker and not the
>"final " determinant.
For sure, and this goes for cladistics too... just a tool, not the be-all.
>
>And with that, I'll go back to my corner.
Don't fall into that tray of Clithon...
|
|
|