I will abstain from the discussion of what is a species because even the most significant scientist still do not understand what a species is. What we're decently good at is how to recognize species based on the human perspective. I will instead try to clarify a few broad points and answer questions. To respond to Tim: "If one draws a parallel from human genetic research, which went from organelle sequencing to full genome, it seems people never learn (but you can publish papers pretending that you are trying). Even then, when the full human genome was sequenced, did we learn much? Not really ..." Science is like trying to reach the top of a never ending ladder. The scientist is the person on the ladder who must take one step beyond the last to reach the next step. The knowledge accumulated from all that we have learned serves as the lower rungs on which we support our weight in order to move on to the next step. If we do not take a chance and publish our available data and speculate the next step, we will never move beyond step one. Science relies on what was before to more or less support and push the blind steps in the future. That is what we call the cutting edge that propels us forward. We have learned a tremendous amount from the Human Genome Project but more than anything, the human genome has become a tool (a rung on the ladder) to support researchers for the next step. From sequencing genomes, we have begun to discover widespread implications of what it means to be human from a social standpoint, to where we have been in the past, to the latest in modern medicine. We have learned of the tiny differences that makes up our ethnicity that are only literally skin deep; we have traced our path of migration out of Africa and discovered that the early humans mated with Neanderthals, giving all modern humans Neanderthal genes; we have come closer than ever to deciphering the genetic code of cancer and the underlying genes of debilitating genetic diseases. Now for just $99 (vs. the billions of dollars that went into sequencing the first human genome) you can have your genome sequenced, and with it comes prediction of any genetic diseases you may have. In the near future, doctors will have the choice of keeping your genomic data on record and prescribe treatment modified just for you. These are just a few examples of the many powerful tools that have become available by learning about the human genome. What you may have seen in science fiction movies will soon be reality. From Aaron: > A problem with the molecular age is that I have found numerous sequences > on Genbank that are definitely wrong! > The sequences that we now have access to are only as good as the names that are put on it. Thus there is a need, I would say loudly, more than ever for taxonomists who can reconcile morphology and DNA. The molecular age does not replace the need for taxonomists as some have suggest, but rather create a need for more. With DNA, we have discovered more life on Earth than what can be studied and documented by taxonomists for the next 300 years. Taxonomy since the days of Linnaeus have focused on morphology because that's all we've got to work with. Now we have a new and powerful tool and it is necessary for a new age of taxonomists to use those tools to understand and catalog the diversity of life. Now, to Leo's questions: > I've forgetten a few things about biochemistry. Could somebody refresh my > memory about exactly how many base pairs it takes to differentiate a > species? > The % of sequence differences or similarity are used as a *proxy* for species delimitation. It is not what makes up the species. Counting number of basepairs is no longer acceptable as a way to delimit species, but you have to take into account the evolutionary trajectory of those basepairs when compared in a broad view. In the future will it be acceptable to keep DNA sequences in a vault and > say we're preserving the species? > Not quite preserving species, but DNA preservation of currently defined species are already being banked. In some cases, DNA is the only thing we know about a species because the organism may be unicellular and lives in lake muck along with the other millions of species. In that case, the pool of DNA is acceptable as the type. Will people be considered alive for Federal income tax purposes if their > DNA sequence exists in a vault somewhere? Will the tax rate vary with the > location of the vault - inside or outside the USA? > I should also be able to accrue interest on my savings account say 100,000 years from now if my DNA were preserved. Nhu Berkeley, CA, USA