> Roy, you're kidding, we wouldn't know more than today. DNA is good enough
> to differ between two specimens, but not on a specific level. On a generic level
> you may find large differences and than be sure they aren't related closely,
> but if - from your results - you create a new relation hypotheses it is and
> stays a hypothesis.
How do you define a species or even a genus Harro? If you don't think
DNA is good enough
to differentiate between species then what is? Morphology? What about
cryptic species? (those that are sympatric though maintaining seperate gene
pools [reproductively seperate] yet are morphologically identical to our
eyes, but genetically they are distinct). What about those morphological
characters that vary with the environment? That's surely not a good way
to split species. Certainly, whether or not they hybridise doesn't mean
much either these days. It's all based on opinion. One can twist any
data any way they want if they are good enough at statistics. How's it
go, lies, more damn lies and statistics! No one can even adequately
define a species. If they can't even be defined then how can they
even exist? It's just a human classification scheme that is largely
meaningless to everything except stupid human beings.
Tootles
Peter Unmack