Intended for the list.
=================================
>>> On 14/03/2010 at 11:39 p.m., Igor Jirkov <Ampharete from yandex.ru> wrote:
Dear all,
I think there are two different things: biodiveristy research and taxonomy. Biodiversity includes ecology, biogeography (now biogeography often called macroecology) and systematics (sensu Mayr and Simpson, it is not the same as taxonomy). In these biodiversity researches often is necessary to name species and here it used taxonomy.
As to taxonomy, I do not understand why DNA information is more valuable for taxonomy then morphology. It is only other instrument for getting information, like microscope, SEM, and ecological investigation of separate single species. Getting information is not the science at all. Science starts when we begin to think what do results mean. Any difference, does not matter in morphology of DNA should to be interpreted. And there is no precise number which deifference mean species and which does not. Because what is species is a VERY BIG QUESTION. Sure they are. But why in some places they appear for TEN years and in other does not appear for millions. Why elephants evolve faster then our polychaetous? Genetic can not answer and so even does not ask. So studying DNA can not help. Biology is not chemistry, and taxonomy is not genetic. I am sure even very expensive instruments can not replace brain, so I look optimistically for future taxonomy.
Wormly Igor
PS however some money NOW will be welcome...
--
Dr. Sc. Igor A. Jirkov
Leading Scientific Researcher
Department of Hydrobiology
Biological faculty
Moscow State University
Moscow
Russia
http://hydro.bio.msu.ru/Personal/Jirkov.htm
NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd.
-------------- next part --------------
Spam detection software, running on the system "blizzard.niwa.co.nz", has
identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.
Content preview: Dear all, I think there are two different things: biodiveristy
research and taxonomy. Biodiversity includes ecology, biogeography (now biogeography
often called macroecology) and systematics (sensu Mayr and Simpson, it is
not the same as taxonomy). In these biodiversity researches often is necessary
to name species and here it used taxonomy. As to taxonomy, I do not understand
why DNA information is more valuable for taxonomy then morphology. It is
only other instrument for getting information, like microscope, SEM, and ecological
investigation of separate single species. Getting information is not the
science at all. Science starts when we begin to think what do results mean.
Any difference, does not matter in morphology of DNA should to be interpreted.
And there is no precise number which deifference mean species and which does
not. Because what is species is a VERY BIG QUESTION. Sure they are. But why
in some places they appear for TEN years and in other does not appear for
millions. Why elephants evolve faster then our polychaetous? Genetic can
not answer and so even does not ask. So studying DNA can not help. Biology
is not chemistry, and taxonomy is not genetic. I am sure even very expensive
instruments can not replace brain, so I look optimistically for future taxonomy.
[...]
Content analysis details: (6.7 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
2.3 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts
2.7 MIME_BASE64_TEXT RAW: Message text disguised using base64 encoding
1.7 HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG HTML-only message, but there is no HTML tag
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Header
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 2189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/annelida/attachments/20100317/d1dd3134/Header.exe
