Bob Hobden writes

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.

By mutation and selection, actually.
Just how the bacterium that degraded roundup arrived.

A new variety they might be.

I doubt that, they interbreed freely and look completely identical to
their brothers and sisters without the gene (except the red timothy, of
course, cos it's red).

They have not had
the gene of something else added to their genes, something that could never
get there by natural means.

Well even that's not true. I don't know if the resistance to roundup in
the australian ryegrass is the same gene as monsanto's, but it's clearly
very similar, probably just a few bases different. In any case of course
the gene could get there by natural means, the single gene attackpoint
of roundup (and dimfops) makes this quite likely.

Lots of species can cross, and some do it naturally, so whether they do that
or not is no certain sign of a species.

Indeed so (to some extent), because the concept of species is a fuzzy
one. Would you say a pekinese dog is a different species from a great
dane? Certainly a variation in a single gene is never itself considered
to constitute a separate species unless it prevents interbreeding.
Otherwise there would be billions of different species of human.

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