> In The Dawn of the Third Age Jim Capelle <jcapelle at gte.net> woke me
> from my contemplation by writing:
>
> >
> >
> >caryho at ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> >> In The Dawn of the Third Age "Adrian R. Tappin" <atappin at ecn.net.au>
> >> woke me from my contemplation by writing:
> >>
> >> >Heres some late breaking news that's come in from my correspondents in the
> >> >field!
> >> >
> >> >>As we discussed a while back DNA tests apparently show that the Utchee
> >> >>Ck's are the new species of rainbow and closely related to crimson spot
> >> >>rainbows. I have not seen the papers on this so this info may or may
> >> >>not be fully correct.
> >> >
> >> >Well now, what do you all think of that ;-)
> >> >
> >> >Adrian.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure what to think of it unless there are some references as
> >> to who said it. As to DNA testing being enough to define a species,
> >> there seems to be considerable dissention in the scientific community
> >> to its validity.
> >
> >Where is this dissention? I ve been following this subject and have not heard
> >anything from people that I talk to or read other articles on the matter of
> >DNA grouping. JiM C.
> >
>
> Actually most of the people I've talked to that describe new species
> have been against using DNA testing. Teeth counts, scale counts, ray
> counts, skeletal structure and in some families color are the
> standards they use. Some have said it may someday be a tool, but at
> present isn't useful. We had a thread about a year or two back (has
> this list really been around that long?) were a few folks using
> familiar with genetic testing methods, couldn't even come close to
> agreeing amongst themselves as to the best genetic test method.
> Seems many think genetic testing is a panacea for defining a species.
> While it can tell how much genetic material is in common between fish,
> how do you define how much difference there needs to be for species to
> be different species? This will still remain up to the judgement of
> the person making the determination. Which genetic test method is
> best? Again up to the individuals judgement. And now they have to
> convince the rest of the scientific community that they have a valid
> reason for defining a species by a standard the rest do not use. While
> at the same time the proponents of this method cannot agree to a
> standard test or level. It appears genetic testing has an up hill
> battle for acceptance in the science of species definition.
>
> Cary Hostrawser
>
> My Rainbowfish Home Page
> http://pw2.netcom.com/~caryho/home.html
>
> Rainbowfish Study Group Web Page
> http://home.stlnet.com/~gwlange/rainbowfish.index.html