When I was in college, I studied Marine Biology. I picked this as my major because I loved the sea and I love animals of all types. Studying them, viewing them in their natural state, understanding their unique biology and life cycles all intrigued me to no end. I had been around the outdoors and animals all my life, so it just made sense. Well, fast forward three years, I dropped the major. Why? I was basically failing out. I had a "c" average, but this was nowhere near high enough to get into any decent grad school.

("So what Mike, we are talking about monitor toxonomy here."

Well, in a sense, the challenges with toxonomy are exactly the type of issues I had that motivated me to move on. Science isn't always an exact science. Many times, the further you look into an area of science, the more questions arise. And fewer become answered.

We as a community of reptile keepers CAN NOT blame scientists for making mistakes and then debating over the best way to correct those mistakes. Technology, system understanding, techniques, even "the rules" of engagement all change. As they change, new problems and discoveries challenge established understanding. But a MAJOR part of science is for new "facts" to withstand the test of time before we further accept marginal data and make drastic changes based on this data.

With Toxonomy, DNA will certainly change the field dramatically. But the more important issue will remain to be, what level of diversity is needed to qualify a new species, sub-species or regional variant. In these questions, DNA will provide the data to a greater level of detail, but not the criteria for change. Even with DNA, this issue will still be around.

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]