Shortcuts in systematics? A commentary on DNA-based taxonomy

By O. Seberg, C. Humphries, S. Knapp, Dennis W. Stevenson, G. Petersen, N. Scharff, N. Andersen. 2003

187 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Genetics, Molecular Biology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8b5ebf2449ff42e6945c6ab503180711218b551d

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecological Modeling

In Genetics

In Molecular Biology

Citations in the corpus

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 alon”
DNA barcoding using chitons (genus Mopalia) (2007, methodology): “We also note that this character-based method is consistent with the phylogenetic species concept (Cracraft 1983; Nixon & Wheeler 1990; Davis & Nixon 1992; Goldstein & Rob DeSalle 2000), in contrast to a distance-based assessment of diversity, which may identify clusters of similar entities but lack”
Myth of the molecule: DNA barcodes for species cannot replace morphology for identification and classification (2004, background): “However, as pointed out by Seberg et al. (2003), access will favor wealthier countries, further dividing nations with the most biodiversity from those nations with the most control over biodiversity resources.”
What can biological barcoding do for marine biology? (2005, background): “Barcoding does not mean the end of morphological studies The philosophy of barcoding has been criticized on various grounds, and obvious problems have been pointed out (e.g. Seberg et al. 2003; Lipscomb et al. 2003; Lee 2004; Will & Rubinoff 2004).”
DNA Barcoding: Error Rates Based on Comprehensive Sampling (2005, background): “Such a proposal has raised the concern of the systematics community, which claims that adopting barcoding would be a step backwards [14–16], returning taxonomy to typology [17].”
The promise of DNA barcoding for taxonomy. (2005, background): “It has been suggested that sequencing is too expensive, difficult, or time-consuming for taxonomists to carry out (e.g., Dunn, 2003; Mallet and Willmott, 2003; Seberg et al., 2003).”
Molecular identification methods of fish species: reassessment and possible applications (2009, background): “Furthermore, researchers should be reminded that scientific names could refer to different contents according to the progress of science (Seberg et al. 2003) and that discrepancies could exit between taxonomical conclusions obtained from morphological and molecular characters.”
The unholy trinity: taxonomy, species delimitation and DNA barcoding (2005, background): “These commentaries could loosely be separated into the taxonomy perspective (Agosti 2003; Dunn 2003; Lipscomb et al. 2003; Proudlove & Wood 2003; Seberg et al. 2003), the molecular perspective (Baker et al.”
Subjective visual evaluation vs. traditional and geometric morphometrics in species delimitation: a comparison of moth genitalia (2007, unknown): “Although DNA-based taxonomy will be used increasingly in species delimitation, it is recognized that this should not happen at the expense of morphology (e.g. Seberg et al., 2003; Will & Rubinoff, 2004; Ebach & Holdrege, 2005).”
The promise of a DNA taxonomy. (2004, unknown): “The databasing issue may be contentious, as attempts to coordinate taxonomic effort on this scale have previously foundered on issues of devolution versus centralization of authority, and funding (Seberg et al. 2003).”
Comment on "Identifying spiders through DNA barcodes" (2005, background): “Both depend on sequence divergence percentages to distinguish intraspecific from interspecific variation, although the ranges of such divergences are still mostly unknown and will certainly vary among groups and across gene loci (Johns and Avise 1998; Ferguson 2002; Seberg et al. 2003; Stoeckle 2003”