Definitely yes. There will be fundamental differences in DNA sequencing data
even between individuals of the same ostensible species, so a judgement call
is always needed. One problem is whether or not meaningful genes or proteins
can be identified for sequencing. The most useful current work depends on
comparisons of genetic distances between  multiple gene loci based on two or
more methods; e.g., amino acid sequencing of particular enzymes and/or the
RFLP version of DNA analysis, plus classical phylogenetic analysis.

In my experience teaching evolutionary biology, the bottom line is that
sequencing data done without an accurate phylogenetic analysis of anatomical
features of the animal is rather useless. And finally, as Paul notes below,
assuming good data sets are obtainable, just where do you want to draw the
dividing line as to separate species? Charles Darwin complained about
"splitters," in his time. Instead he usually regarded any species as
inherently variable with small variations being simply reflective of minor
variations in its geographic habitat. This view can be entirely defended
with modern genetics and is still a useful way to think about many species
attributes.

-Burton V.

> From: Automatic digest processor <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Conchologists of America List <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 00:01:12 -0400
> To: Recipients of CONCH-L digests <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: CONCH-L Digest - 24 Apr 2002 (#2002-115)
>
> 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.
>