Paleonet: Holotype and specimen [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]. And you thought we were done? No way.
pleuronaia at gmail.com
Fri Aug 31 22:53:12 GMT 2007
> 12. Have we had a decision on whether or not a designated DNA sequence can
> be a holotype? Certainly many molecular biologists who do bulk sample
> sequencing (sequence some water, mud or even certain fossil materials
> (desiccated excrement that contains parasites, as in the ground sloth
> material from caves)) can obtain distinct sequences that represent unknown
> species of bacteria, archaea or eukaryotes including tiny animals. I would
> have no philosophical problem with doing it, although it might be hell to
> work with it later on.
I don't think one can just designate the DNA as a holotype (though I
don't know anything about the bacterial Code). However, there are
examples out there where a new taxon was described and distinctive DNA
was the only cited feature, e.g. the lymnaeid snail Catascopium
Meier-Brook and Bargues, 2002 (although Starobogatov & Budnikova,
1976, had previously claimed to find suitable morphological
differences to justify a genus based on the same species).
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
More information about the Paleonet