- Joined
- Jul 16, 2009
- Messages
- 3,330
- Reaction score
- 5,054
IMHO what is "damaging to the conversation" is somebody entering it somewhat out of context and being blatantly obtuse for the sake of argument.Sure, but when someone has expertise in the matter, they are able to tell such distinct differences. I should think that being able to correctly identify a species by morphology would be less obfuscating than repeatedly saying “we can’t know unless we have the DNA”. Given that we’re not going to conduct such analyses with each ID thread, the best we can do is make an educated observation based on the data that we do have. To consider this method of identification as objectively wrong is simply irrational and damaging to the conversation.
Of course nobody is going to DNA test every specimen. That fact furthers the simple point at hand. You can't tell toxicity by looking at a photo of a zoanthid or palythoa and you don't have biological data to assist. Therefore, you should treat it as toxic.
If you want to make a guess based on observation, that is up to you but it is contrary to the science that indicates that visual traits are not definitive. There is nothing irrational about that.