Bob Hobden writes

No because all the genes in me are supposed to be there no matter what else
they are in, whereas, if you insert a gene that is specific to another
species that can then be passed on to it's new hosts progeny is it still the
same thing or is it something new, a new species?
If it is a "new" species then it cannot be called what the original was
called i.e. GM Soya should not be called Soya at all but needs another name
both scientifically and generally.

So how about

(naturally evolved) occurring blackgrass that is dimfop resistant?
Would you call that a new or different species or just a different
strain of the same species?

or

(naturally evolved) roundup resistant ryegrass (as found in australia)?

or

(naturally evolved) species of timothy grass that is bright red?

Normally one does is partly by whether it can interbreed (if it can it's
the same species) or sometimes by location where they are effectively
separated and (usually) have a slightly different morphology although
the latter is increasingly NOT considered to be a different species if
it can interbreed.


--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.