More than them being good, the issue also begs that the testing be
standardized.  The value of standardizing and the validity of the
standardized test being promoted by the Consortium for the Barcode of Life
(CBOL)
(http://z14.invisionfree.com/Conchologist_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1178 )
was tested and verified by a team at the Florida Museum of Natural History.
See the news report at http://news.ufl.edu/2005/11/28/barcoding.  For the
paper go to
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.00304
22

Marlo
merritt island, fl

From: Conchologists List On Behalf Of Pete Krull
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 10:43 AM
John brings up an interesting point: just how reliable are all these new DNA
tests at determine species, subspecies, etc.?
---------------------

John K. Tucker raised the question:

"I also might point out that molecular studies, while interesting are
looking at characters just the same as does any conchological study.  In
fact the characters are often fewer (two non-nuclear DNA molecules in the
case of Hayes and Karl).  I have my doubts about the value of using
mitochondrial DNA due to the nature of its inheritance.  Regardless, I would
argue that a more inclusive study using nuclear DNA might yield very
different results.  From a molecular view point if humans and chimpanzees
have 95% of their genes in common then you only have a 5% chance of finding
two that differ between man and chimp.  A molecular man might thus have a
95% chance of considering them conspecific assuming complete ignorance of
their biologies and morphologies."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------