"Homo troglodytes" Genome Project, DNA 96% {us}

While there are other genii in which the difference between the species in DNA terms is less than that between Chimps and Humans there most certainly aren't any in which there are such vast morphological differences. Morphology, IMO, remains an entirely valid basis for distinguishing genii. Pan troglodytes is should remain.

Your argument fails on three counts.Morphology does not mean surface features; it means the physical structure of the animal. Scientists were perfectly able to distinguish superficially very similar animals (such as Echinacea and Hedgehogs) using morphology long before genetic analysis became available, indeed before evolution was even identified.Humans and chimps have far more morphological differences than even the most diverse of dog breeds - whose differences amount to variations in size and shape without any significant changes to the underlying body structure or muscle groups. Humans have significantly different jaws, hips, legs, feet, muscle structure, head shape, spine organisation and brain structure.Dogs are considered the same species because they can interbreed; chimps and humans cannot. And are also an example of artificial selection which, frankly, bends things somewhat.This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 09-02-2005 04:34 AM

Lithodid-min, Doh! Sorry. "Invert congenerics" - I don't know the term, please explain?

I didn't say they exceeded "every other" one, I said they were sufficent to grant a seperate genus. Edit actually re-reading my first post, I did, didn't I? I should have said something slightly less absolute. There is more morphological difference between chimps and humans than is usually accepted at a genus level classification. But I haven't advocated a pure morphological approach. But I do think it has a role to play if our categories are to be useful. Lithodid's point about recognising differences more readily in similar species is a good one though.This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 09-05-2005 07:43 AM