In article <43ecm1$l89 at studium.student.umu.se>,
Agneta.Guillemot at historia.umu.se (Ludvig Mortberg) wrote:
[...]
> I think that sequence information should only be used if nothing else
> works.
I think one should use the information one has available. Any
discrepancies found could be interesting.
> If you can't identify any reliable morphological traits try sequencing
> a couple of genes with broad outgroups. What to sequence is hard to
> decide. Go for something linked to morphology or metabolism.
Hmm... Sequence data that is directly linked to morphology?
I don't think that is much of an option at present given the
uncertainty in mapping the genotype to the phenotype or gross
morphology. As Ed Rybicki said, this is also not a lot of help
for bacteria (ie. most of the organisms on the planet) or viruses.
Metabolic or structural genes seem a better bet and that is part
of the reason why they have been used.
Regards, Tim Ikeda (timi at mendel.berkeley.edu)
