I largely agree with what you say, you have read a little too far into the point I was trying to get across. Which was that good quality taxonomic datasets include various sources of information, which can be tested against each other. A series of internal checks so to speak. These internal checks make it clear for all to see that lots of data was cross-correlated to produce the result. Rather than some data, totally unsubstantiated and largely subjective.



You also raised this point and I too have used morphology to delineate species that really lumped under just using allozymes or mtDNA.



My specialty as a taxonomist/palaeontologist is morphology, anatomy etc. I am not a geneticist, but I utilise the work of my co-authors extensively, that is I work with people who add this to my work. I have nothing against genetics. I just do not see it as completely objective. Any more so than morphological data is if its done properly.



I know you are not fond of cladistics but what you seem to be referring to is what I call an arm-chair taxonomist. If you have never seen anything but the blood of the species you are working with there is not much you know. But thats personal opinion.



Cheers, Scott
Carettochelys.com


-----
Scott Thomson



If you believe you can or you can't you are always right.

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