Art Weil's question and the various lively answers have made an interesting thread. The latest message, by Michael Reagin, supports some of Art Weil's "wild" speculation. Yes, DNA sequencing is getting cheaper as time goes by, and he even suggests that rapid DNA sequencing would be done using mitochondrial DNA rather than whole-organism DNA. I doubt if Art would mind! Art Weil's "black box" may be simplistic, but Michael Reagin shows that the "Question Man" has indeed asked a reasonable question. (Of course, anyone who saw the recent movie "Gattaca" has been wondering along similar lines.) My question has to do with the results. Suppose that Art has his black box that rapidly and inexpensively sequences DNA. He finds that some snails look almost alike but have very different DNA. Very well, DNA is the code of life itself, so obviously these are different taxa (species/genera/etc.), and he is inspired to search for the morphologic details that might distinguish them in the field. More work is needed, but no change in principles. Then Art tests two snails that look very different but have almost identical DNA. He tests many more snails and finds that these results are consistent, not due to a mistake or to a single pathological individual. My questions for Michael Reagin and other interested conchologists are: Are these also separate taxa? Would the DNA specialist prefer to call them different subspecies rather than different species or genera? Is the DNA criterion the only one to be considered, or is morphology still considered to be a valuable tool in taxonomy? And what is a paleontologist supposed to do about it? Fossils usually don't retain soft parts, much less DNA. Andrew K. Rindsberg Geological Survey of Alabama