Comment on "Identifying spiders through DNA barcodes"

By L. Prendini. 2005

131 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/70f55f687c9635f7ae51eceddfee182617e8316b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Genetics

In Molecular Biology

Citations in the corpus

DNA Barcoding Applied to Invasive Leafminers (Diptera: Agromyzidae) in the Philippines (2006, background): “However, mitochondrial DNA does not offer a perfect metric of biological divergence (Sperling 2003, Moritz and Cicero 2004, Prendini 2005).”
A comparison of algorithms for the identification of specimens using DNA barcodes: examples from gymnosperms (2007, methodology): “Prendini (2005) presents some critiques of DNA bar-coding using Barrett and Hebert’s study as an example.”
DNA Barcoding: Error Rates Based on Comprehensive Sampling (2005, methodology): “Second, they substantially undersampled true sister species pairs [23,24,38], and thus overestimated interspecific divergence.”
Accelerated species inventory on Madagascar using coalescent-based models of species delineation. (2009, background): “First is the widely held concern that DNA sequence data, in particular short mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) fragments, are not suited to capture the species category in the way that complex morphological characters can (Moritz and Cicero 2004; Prendini 2005; Will et al. 2005).”
Undisciplined thinking: morphology and Hennig’s unfinished revolution (2008, background): “The Achilles’ heel of these ‘barcoders’ is the theoretical weakness of DNA barcoding as it is currently advocated (Prendini, 2005; Wheeler, 2005; Little & Stevenson, 2007).”
Integrative taxonomy identifies new (and old) species in the Lasioglossum (Dialictus) tegulare (Robertson) species group (Hymenoptera, Halictidae) (2009, methodology): “Previous DNA barcode studies have usually used phenetic methods (Prendini 2005) and left putative new species for future workers to describe (e.g. Hebert et al. 2004).”
The unholy trinity: taxonomy, species delimitation and DNA barcoding (2005, methodology): “A controversial aspect of the DNA barcoding initiative has been which molecular tool to use to generate the DNA barcodes (Prendini 2005).”
DNA barcoding and taxonomy in Diptera: a tale of high intraspecific variability and low identification success. (2006, methodology): “The problem with these studies is the lack of consideration for geographic variation (Moritz and Cicero, 2004; Prendini, 2005; Sperling, 2003; Will and Rubinoff, 2004; Ward et al., 2005), although it is well known that species with a wide geographic distribution often contain a considerable amount…”
Prospects for using DNA barcoding to identify spiders in species-rich genera (2009, background): “005% of spider species (Prendini 2005), and taxon sampling was sparse, with only 5 genera being represented by more than 4 species.”
‘Integrative taxonomy’ then and now: a response to Dayrat (2005) (2007, background): “The problems arise when so-called ‘barcodes’ are used as neo-phenetic arbitrary constructs in lieu of testable species hypotheses (Prendini, 2005).”
Recent advances in DNA taxonomy (2007, background): “First, the clusters may simply represent an artefact because of insufficient taxonomical and geographical sampling; clusters may collapse, once closely related species are included and geographic variation is fully quantified (Moritz and Cicero 2004; Sperling 2004; Prendini 2005 ).”
Review and Interpretation of Trends in DNA Barcoding (2019, background): “The explosion of DNA barcode data and distance-based dendrograms did occasion certain remedial presentations (e.g., Prendini, 2005) of such methodological issues that had been debated and largely settled in the early decades of phylogenetic systematics.”