I think that's what he was saying ;-)
Regards,
Bruce.
Bruce Hansen, ANGFA, caring for our aquatic ecosystems.
Please visit us at http://www.ozemail.com.au/~fisher/angfa.htm
----------
> From: Mach T. Fukada <fukada at hawaii.edu>
> To: rainbowfish at pcug.org.au
> Subject: Re: [RML] News Flash
> Date: Friday, 24 April 1998 20:50
>
> At 03:36 PM 4/23/98 -1000, you wrote:
>
> In fooling around with PCR analysis I recall asking the question as to
"can
> it tell me that we are dealing with different species?" I was looking at
a
> beetle that some how was able to feed on over 355 different species of
> plants (many are unrelated plant species). I suspected that there was
> really a species complex involved and wanted to look into this problem
via
> PCR. I was told that there was no criteria set for differentiating
between
> species (after all a species is an artificial taxon developed to help us
> "pidgeon hole" groups of related organisms". I suppose it made sense at
> least in dealing with insects and differentiating between sympatric
> populations of the same organisms. There could be radical differences
> between the two populations genetic make up, yet have no morphological
> differences. i.e. sweet potato whitefly and silverleaf whitefly. Also
in
> cases in which certain insects develop resistance to pesticides, etc can
be
> mediated by mutations of the endosymbionts, which would result in huge
> differences in genetic make up (allozymes, and isozymes also I think),
but
> no change in morphology (endosymbiont evolution theory). Now it is
> possible that there are morphological characteristics that were not
> considered and as we study further we will find the characteristics that
> will differentiate these cases where there are very simmilar appearing
> organisms. However, on the other hand I prefer the ecological approach
and
> biological species concept. Of course it might not work in the cases of
> sympatric species, or are they really species if naturally occuring
hybrids
> are formed....