Some interesting stuff about genetics I've found along the way.

J Craig Venter http://www.jcvi.org/

Barcode of Life http://www.barcoding.si.edu/ and Kew
http://www.kew.org/barcoding/

Furthering teh theory of human migration out of Africa
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...-genetics.html

Synthetic biology
http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200802291

K


"K Barrett" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 09:00:10 -0700 in
K Barrett
wrote:
Ray, I didn't want umbel/non-umbel to be the end of the conversation.
People who passively read this news group listen to you. They may not
read
the whole post about how confusing bulbophyllums are even to
taxonomists. A
myth would persist. Neither of us want that.

I guess I'll ask the impertinant question now...
has anyone done gene sequencing on prominant plants with the Cirr
genus somtimes applied, prominant plants with the Bulbophyllum genus
applied, and the fringe cases?
I have this funny feeling that as gene sequencing improves a lot of the
existing taxonomy will be tossed on its ear.
--
Chris Dukes
"Let all the babies be born. Then let us drown those we do not like."
-- G. K. Chesterton.

I hope Rob Halgren (of Rob's Rules) chimes in here becasue he's employed
in this field. I know there are efforts to elucidate the genomes of
orchids and rank them in a new systemic order according to their DNA.
This is what the debate in Cattleyas has been about for the past 7-8
years, much of which is open to debate. If you look at the DNA analysis
of Laelia purpurata (for example) it is closer to Sophronitis (like Soph
coccinea) than to the Mexican laelias (like L anceps). Now, to look at L
purpurata and Soph coccinea one would never think they were closely
related at all, but genetically they are. This is where the debate
starts. Some say the science is moving too fast. The cladistic analyses
haven't been verified by others in the field (a major tenet of the
Scientific Method) and is stacked in favor of these splits. However these
analyses were performed by people with huge amounts for credibility, so
who's to say they are wrong? Cassio Van Den Berg at the Miami WOC
proposed lumping many species back into 'Cattleya', for to continually
split and split and split was getting ridiculous - many monotypic genera
were created, interrelationships became unwieldy. This proposal has yet
to be accepted.

There is an effort to create a genetic barcode for every species
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_barcoding The 3rd International Orchid
Conservation Committee met in Costa Rica last year, its proceedings lists
had many talks about genetic identification, specifically about orchids.

So the quick answer to your question is yes, the genetic
interrelationships of every species on the planet are being elucidated and
progress is happening at light speed. Knowledge has grown by leaps and
bounds since 2000 or so.

In medicine there's a push to determine personal genomes (that is to say
your own personal DNA code). The target price for this is $1000.00 It
presently costs much, much more than that, but it'll happen sooner than
you think. Then the debate about whether health insurance should have
access to that data will begin. Insurers denying coverage based on DNA
has lready been made illegal, but you know how business works, there's
always wiggle room. *G*

Then there's J Craig Ventner's effort at creating life from stock genetic
material. He's already put together one chromosome from stock which he
hopes to insert into the nucleus of a monochromosomal bacteria (its
chromosome will have been removed) and see if his kickstarts and the
bacteria continues to live. (cue: Frankenstein "Its Alive!" sequence).
Not to mention that the monochromosomal bacteria he selected for use is a
pathogen from the human urinary tract. This is an offshoot from research
in making genetic machines.

You gotta keep up, Chris!

K Barrett