"Oz" wrote in message in reply to me

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.


No, those are results of natural evolution at work (albeit because of mans
work in some cases), the genes of these plants have changed the way they
work naturally, by selection. A new variety they might be. They have not had
the gene of something else added to their genes, something that could never
get there by natural means.
Lots of species can cross, and some do it naturally, so whether they do that
or not is no certain sign of a species.
--
Regards
Bob

Use a useful Screen Saver...
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here.