Descriptions of new species without morphology

Of course, we should not go to the other extreme.
There are groups whose bilogical types can be distinguished by any novice from a distance of a meter, and here you don't need to spend money on DNA isolation.

I can't agree. You yourself admitted that you built phylogenetic trees, and reasoned who was descended from whom. How to build a phylogeny of whiteflies without cabbage and turnip?

About how. Now a good binocular - guano, cool-is when something expensive, for which the laboratory pays. This is now called PROFESSIONALISM. I laughed, I'm sorry.

Professionalism is first of all an ADEQUATE job. Is it possible to call a physicist who studies caloric and the world ether and denies quantum mechanics a professional?

In the end, I would reduce everything to one phrase,
there is a real biological species, and it, this species, absolutely does not care if the researcher has a magnifying glass, a microscope, or a sequinator (for determining sequences). It's up to the researcher (or amateur collector) to learn how to distinguish one species from another, using everything they can.

And it's funny, I haven't met any virologist collectors. It would be a terribly expensive hobby!

This post was edited by amara - 03.09.2010 19: 04

I can't agree. You yourself admitted that you built phylogenetic trees, and reasoned who was descended from whom. How to build a phylogeny of whiteflies without cabbage and turnip?

I agree, I agree, I simplified it a little, that is, for the initial identification of species. This is enough for many people. For example, with some types of beetles .
But if you want something deeper, then you need to "pick"the sequence.

How to put it mildly... For what? If, after picking the sequences, absolutely the same phylogenetic trees are constructed as when using morphology. And if the result is the same, then why pay more, as they say in that ad?

Molekolekka is very good for solving complex or confusing taxonomic situations. But it is still very, very early to build a whole system based on sequences. Those who think this is possible are naive people. Not enough material. Monstrously small. Crumbs are simple.

I agree that where there is no need or special interest, there is no need.

Often confirms what has been developed on morphology. And this is not surprising, people worked with their heads on their shoulders, and by the way they continue to work.

Material (sequences) will always be lacking in my opinion, but even now I have seen zdorovye works at the species level (on the phylogeny of beetles of the genus Acilius) and on the phylogeny of insect orders (helped to confirm ONE of the points of view on the relationship of fan-wings). And that's not a bad thing. That is, there is a benefit.

And who will do extensive research?
That is, they will write down a hundred and fifty thousand species that are indistinguishable except genetically, and just everyone will know it, but even no one will be able to put it in the collection - because of the inaccessibility of gene analyzes.. What should I do with these views? This is how-found out and what's next? And how and to whom to conduct further research-if only not many people will be able to use gene tests?
In my opinion, genetics without morphological and faunal studies will simply give us some incomprehensible data, which we will not be able to use later)

In my opinion, genetics without morphological and faunal studies will simply give us some incomprehensible data, which we will not be able to use later )

Who is "we can't"? Collectors?

yes, I do not question the usefulness. I'm just trying to say that firing guns at sparrows is stupid.

In order for the calculations of DNA researchers in taxonomy to take shape, it is necessary to accumulate data on DNA sequences, I believe, at least half of the species diversity that is described by traditional methods.

Stanislav, don't you think the lines don't match?

I don't have a setup for seeding, and it's not expected yet

Well, this is your private problem and it will not affect the development of science.
Also, the development of science will not be affected by the suffering of collectors deprived of sequinators.

This post was edited by bora - 03.09.2010 19: 43

That is, they will write down a hundred and fifty thousand species that are indistinguishable except genetically, and just everyone will know it, but even no one will be able to put it in the collection - because of the inaccessibility of gene analyzes.. What should I do with these views? This is how-found out and what's next? And how and to whom to conduct further research-if only not many people will be able to use gene tests?

This phrase reminds me of the criticism of the current Noctuoidea system, where some traditionally scoop groups are fused with volnyanki and dipper in Erebidae-they say that we have different people doing them!

The answer is both there and there-yes poh.

Well, most fans will not be able to identify their junk.
Well, the family specialist will become the subfamily specialist.
What matters to science is the truth, not someone's personal interests.