Enmos, what you proposed has been discussed in the scientific community well before either genome was fully sequenced (see e.g. Goodman, Am. J. Hum. Genet. 64:31–39, 1999).
The genome sequence as a whole however cannot be used straightforward for classification purposes. We are still lacking tools to build stable taxonomic distance based on complete genome sequences. With prokaryotes there are tentative attempts but not in the scale of the human or chimpanzee genome (to my knowledge). Usually again conserved regions or polymorphisms are preferred (as established statistical methods can be applied) rather than taking on the whole beast. Also it is often (usually) not sufficient to compare two species alone in order to classifiy them correctly. However around 2007 also a macaque genome has been published, allowing further analyses. And finally the definition of genus itself may be a problem. There are basically two school of thoughts (again, to my knowledge I am not a systematist) the first defines a genus as a species or a group of species of common ancestry that occupies an ecological situation, or adaptive zone, that is different from that occupied by the species of another genus. The second second (cladistic) definition stats that a genus is a group of species that are more closely related to one another than to species assigned to another genus. In the latter a genus is always monophyletic, according to the former it can also be paraphyletic. Both are limited in different ways however, as our convenient way of trying to assign nature into classes does not necessary reflect natural distinction itself. According to the cladistic definition however, all apes would belong to the same family (Hominidae) and chimpanzees, bonobos and humans would belong to the same subgenus.
