A plea for DNA taxonomy

By Diethard Tautz, P. Arctander, A. Minelli, Richard H. Thomas, A. Vogler. 2003

978 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Genetics, Molecular Biology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7f51dff5b2ba8203e2fdd30006196c4a56f587e1

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology

In Genetics

In Molecular Biology

Citations in the corpus

The unholy trinity: taxonomy, species delimitation and DNA barcoding (2005, background): “2003), the molecular perspective (Baker et al. 2003; Blaxter & Floyd 2003; Ronquist & Gardenfors 2003; Tautz et al. 2003) and commentaries sympathetic to both (Mallet & Willmott 2003; Wilson 2003).”
Disentangling the morphological stasis in two rotifer species of the Brachionus plicatilis species complex (2007, background): “Presently, molecular tools for population screening are available for one or a few genes in order to identify significantly different strains within cryptic species complexes (see Campillo et al., 2005; Hebert et al., 2003; Papakostas et al., 2005; Tautz et al., 2003).”
Integrative taxonomy in two free-living nematode species complexes (2008, background): “The discovery of cryptic species, i.e. genetically divergent but morphologically identical species (Avise & Walker, 1999), has polarized taxonomy between ‘classical’ and molecular biologists (Blaxter & Floyd, 2003; Sites & Marshall, 2003; Tautz et al., 2003).”
The perils of DNA barcoding and the need for integrative taxonomy. (2005, background): “It is important to make a clear distinction between DNA taxonomy, which is scientific, but arguably based on bad science (Tautz et al., 2002, 2003; Seberg et al., 2003; Lipscomb et al., 2003) and DNA-based identification, which may be useful as applied taxonomy if done properly, but bad if done…”
DNA barcoding and taxonomy in Diptera: a tale of high intraspecific variability and low identification success. (2006, methodology): “…been achieved by, for example, digitizing taxonomic information, using new microscopic techniques, and developing interactive identification tools (De Ley et al., 2005; Dunn, 2003; Klaus et al., 2003; Marshall, 2003; Prendini, 2005; Sperling , 2003; Thacker, 2003; Wheeler, 2004; Will et al., 2005).”
Taxonomic inflation: its influence on macroecology and conservation. (2004, background): “Recently, attention has focused on fundamental properties, such as what species are [1,2] and how they arise [3,4], and there has been less interest in how species are tobe described anddelineated (butsee[ 5 ,6]).In spite of major differences of opinion about species delimitation, we tend to use spe”
Revised classification of the family Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea) based on combined molecular and morphological data (2009, background): “Although the practice of combining evidence from different sources is not without its opponents (e.g. Scotland et al., 2003; Tautz et al., 2003), proponents of this methodology have found that the addition of morphological characters to molecular data sets generally has a synergistic impact on the…”
Defining operational taxonomic units using DNA barcode data (2005, background): “DNA barcoding, the use of a specified DNA sequence to provide taxonomic identification for a specimen, is a technique that should be applicable to all cellular (and much viral) life (Floyd et al. 2002; Hebert et al. 2003; Tautz et al. 2003; Blaxter et al. 2004).”
DNA Barcoding, species delineation and taxonomy: a historical perspective (2015, positive): “The use of DNA sequences for either identification or species delineation is embedded in the conceptual framework of molecular taxonomy [1-4,29,30] and the coalescent theory [31-33].”
Undisciplined thinking: morphology and Hennig’s unfinished revolution (2008, background): “DNA taxonomy (in the sense of Tautz et al., 2003) is another flawed approach that would diminish the information content of classifications (e.g. Lipscomb et al., 2003).”
‘Integrative taxonomy’ then and now: a response to Dayrat (2005) (2007, background): “There has always been and always will be bad taxonomy as well as good; one need only compare the basis for ‘DNA taxonomy’ with existing taxonomy to be convinced of that (cf. Lipscomb, Platnick & Wheeler, 2003; Tautz et al., 2003).”
Sequence-based species delimitation for the DNA taxonomy of undescribed insects. (2006, methodology): “Although homoplasious connections do not necessarily correspond to species boundaries, in practice this algorithm often does separate groups that are roughly coincident with named species or species groups (e.g., Cardoso and Vogler, 2005; Templeton, 2001; Wilder and Hollocher, 2003; Templeton et al.”