DNA Etc.

John Bryan johnbryan@worldnet.att.net
Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:19:57 PST
Dear Lee Poulsen:

I agree 100% with you. No one can deny the valuable contributions the
study of DNA can make. But that such upsets the composition of genera,
as we know them, and have known them for years, is, in my opinion, a
step in the wrong direction.

If differences are not visible with a 10 x hand held lens, then I
question the usefulness of the studies.  Surely the objective is, and
should be, the identification of a plant.

Technology marches on, I am sure there will come a day when DNA samples
are found not to be the end of advancements in our knowledge of plants.

The nomenclature that has, and still does serve us well, should be,
again in my opinion, preserved. In my opinion, the new classification of
genera and species, should form a basis of a new and separate
classification, it should be recognized and be available to those who
would profit from such knowledge, such as breeders of the various

Is it not time, as progress is made, but before we destroy the
nomenclature that has served us so well, to consider another record of
such determinations, separate but hand in hand with that existing. Such
being available to those who can take advantage of recent
determinations, but not to the point of reclassification, and the
casting aside of tried and true divisions, based on DNA. I often wonder
just how many DNA samples are taken to assure conclusions reached are
indeed correct. Are, as an example, studies made of the DNA of the same
species from different geographic locations? Do clones of a species

Thank you for your comments, I agree with you. Cheers, John E. Bryan

More information about the pbs mailing list