DNA barcoding groups mention preservation of biodiversity as one of their aims. Much of this barcoding research is very new. What if the DNA barcodes lump rather than split a group of species resulting in a loss of biodiversity? Does that go against the stated aim of a group to preserve biodiversity? Would there be pressure to suppress that result? It has been said that countries have placed common species on CITES red list for their own purposes or aggrandisement, could they not also use barcoding to claim greater biodiversity? And perhaps wide ranging entitlements under future (hypothetical) biodiversity treaties? What, if any, ethics are involved? Do any of the groups such as BOLD or DI ever talk amongst themselves about potentials for abuse? It may sound laughable. But money - and I think in future years lots of money - will be parted out to preserve biodiversity and compenate for uses of a country's biodiversity. Definitions of species come and go. What was/is a species now versus 20 years from now could be quite critical. And valuable. It might be worth a better understanding of the dynamics involved, if any. K Barrett N Calif, USA _________________________________________________________________ i’m is proud to present Cause Effect, a series about real people making a difference. http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=text_Cause_Effect _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [email protected] http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
