© 2005 Society of Systematic Biologists
The Perils of DNA Barcoding and the Need for Integrative Taxonomy
Edited by Vincent Savolainen
1 ESPM Department—Insect Biology, University of California Berkeley, California, 94720, USA
2 Department of Integrative Biology, University of California Berkeley, California, 94720, USA
3 Natural History Museum Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, UK
Received March 23, 2005; Revised June 9, 2005; Accepted July 12, 2005
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
"Your work, Sir, is both new and good, but what's new is not good and what's good is not new."Samuel Johnson
We argue that DNA barcoding has both new and good elements, but unfortunately no elements that are both. We are strongly in favor of the good idea of using DNA for identification, but that is old hat—the use of DNA for identification goes back to the beginning of molecular systematics. The DNA barcoders cannot take any credit for that. Their new idea that DNA barcoding can replace normal taxonomy for naming new species and studying their relationships is worse than bad, it is destructive. Statements by some barcoding proponents suggest an inevitable replacement of taxonomic research rather than augmentation of technology to taxonomic science, e.g., "a COI-based identification system will undoubtedly provide taxonomic resolution that exceeds that which can be achieved through morphological studies. Moreover, the generation of
 |
Submitted Questions and Our Answers |
|---|
1. Given two billion US dollars (the amount a comprehensive program of DNA barcoding is estimated to cost [Whitfield, 2003]), how would you spend this money to benefit taxonomic and biodiversity research, and what would be the legacy of these data?
2. Globally, alpha taxonomic research (the discovery and description of new species) is in crisis. Is DNA barcoding an expedient solution to this problem or will it expedite its decline?
3. Overlapping character variation between and within species is well documented for many character systems. Why is this any more or less of a problem for DNA barcoding?
4. Many taxonomists already practice DNA barcoding informally when delimiting and discovering species. Is this wrong, and what data is sufficient to demonstrate that a series of specimens represents a new species with traditional or barcoding methods?
5. The proposed barcoding genes can fail to recover accurate species trees. Does this matter for DNA barcoding?
6. Some species are not mitochondrially monophyletic, sharing polymorphisms with unrelated taxa. How will this affect identifications using a barcoding approach?
7. Should the completion of a DNA barcoding program ever occur, would this mark the beginning or end of taxonomic and biodiversity research, and what will be the role of systematists in a world where most identifications are done by "barcode"?
8. Would the inevitable expansion of sequencing efforts that would come with a program of DNA barcoding be concomitant with a decline in the quality of taxonomic research?
9. Assuming the technical problems of DNA barcoding can be overcome, is it now, or will it ever be, cost-effective relative to traditional methods to use DNA barcodes for bioinventory purposes?
10. Hypothesis-driven research is the foundation upon which most research agencies assign funding priorities, yet taxonomy is discovery driven. How would your approach to taxonomy convince these agencies of the merits of taxonomic studies?
|
Position Statement |
|---|
|
Note |
|---|
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. T. Monaghan, R. Wild, M. Elliot, T. Fujisawa, M. Balke, D. J.G. Inward, D. C. Lees, R. Ranaivosolo, P. Eggleton, T. G. Barraclough, et al. Accelerated Species Inventory on Madagascar Using Coalescent-Based Models of Species Delineation Syst Biol, July 1, 2009; (2009) syp027v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. M. Spooner DNA barcoding will frequently fail in complicated groups: An example in wild potatoes Am. J. Botany, June 1, 2009; 96(6): 1177 - 1189. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Petrusek, R. Tollrian, K. Schwenk, A. Haas, and C. Laforsch From the Cover: A "crown of thorns" is an inducible defense that protects Daphnia against an ancient predator PNAS, February 17, 2009; 106(7): 2248 - 2252. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. E. Bond and A. K. Stockman An Integrative Method for Delimiting Cohesion Species: Finding the Population-Species Interface in a Group of Californian Trapdoor Spiders with Extreme Genetic Divergence and Geographic Structuring Syst Biol, August 1, 2008; 57(4): 628 - 646. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Lahaye, M. van der Bank, D. Bogarin, J. Warner, F. Pupulin, G. Gigot, O. Maurin, S. Duthoit, T. G. Barraclough, and V. Savolainen From the Cover: DNA barcoding the floras of biodiversity hotspots PNAS, February 26, 2008; 105(8): 2923 - 2928. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. J. Wiens Species Delimitation: New Approaches for Discovering Diversity Syst Biol, December 1, 2007; 56(6): 875 - 878. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Elias, R. I Hill, K. R Willmott, K. K Dasmahapatra, A. V.Z Brower, J. Mallet, and C. D Jiggins Limited performance of DNA barcoding in a diverse community of tropical butterflies Proc R Soc B, November 22, 2007; 274(1627): 2881 - 2889. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T.L Whitworth, R.D Dawson, H Magalon, and E Baudry DNA barcoding cannot reliably identify species of the blowfly genus Protocalliphora (Diptera: Calliphoridae) Proc R Soc B, July 22, 2007; 274(1619): 1731 - 1739. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Agnarsson and M. Kuntner Taxonomy in a Changing World: Seeking Solutions for a Science in Crisis Syst Biol, June 1, 2007; 56(3): 531 - 539. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. Rubinoff, S. Cameron, and K. Will A Genomic Perspective on the Shortcomings of Mitochondrial DNA for "Barcoding" Identification J. Hered., November 1, 2006; 97(6): 581 - 594. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. H. Cannon, C. S. Kua, E. K. Lobenhofer, and P. Hurban Capturing genomic signatures of DNA sequence variation using a standard anonymous microarray platform Nucleic Acids Res., October 6, 2006; 34(18): e121 - e121. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Meier, K. Shiyang, G. Vaidya, and P. K. L. Ng DNA Barcoding and Taxonomy in Diptera: A Tale of High Intraspecific Variability and Low Identification Success Syst Biol, October 1, 2006; 55(5): 715 - 728. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Hickerson, C. P. Meyer, and C. Moritz DNA Barcoding Will Often Fail to Discover New Animal Species over Broad Parameter Space Syst Biol, October 1, 2006; 55(5): 729 - 739. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Cameron, D. Rubinoff, and K. Will Who Will Actually Use DNA Barcoding and What Will It Cost? Syst Biol, October 1, 2006; 55(5): 844 - 847. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M. Padial and I. De la Riva Taxonomic Inflation and the Stability of Species Lists: The Perils of Ostrich's Behavior Syst Biol, October 1, 2006; 55(5): 859 - 867. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Robba, S. J. Russell, G. L. Barker, and J. Brodie Assessing the use of the mitochondrial cox1 marker for use in DNA barcoding of red algae (Rhodophyta) Am. J. Botany, August 1, 2006; 93(8): 1101 - 1108. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|