DNA barcodes of closely related (but morphologically and ecologically distinct) species of skipper butterflies (Hesperiidae) can differ by only one to three nucleotides

130 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Alleviating the taxonomic impediment of DNA barcoding and setting a bad precedent: names for ten species of ‘Astraptes fulgerator’ (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae: Eudaminae) with DNA-based diagnoses (2010, background): “The grace period recommended by ICZN Code of Ethics (1999, Appendix A2) has long elapsed, and the ‘identifiers’ have evidently moved on to other groups (Janzen et al., 2005; Burns et al., 2007, 2008, 2010).”
DNA barcoding of Pacific Canada’s fishes (2009, background): “Their habitat [found as deep as 7,500 m below sea level ( Andriashev and Pitruk 1993 )] makes them hard to sample and their delicate bodies are often damaged by standard Wshing methods, making it diYcult to obtain individuals for detailed study.”
Current progress in DNA barcoding and future implications for entomology (2011, background): “Since then, many new species have been described with DNA barcodes from the holotype or paratypes, not only in arthropods, but also in other animals (e.g. Burns et al. 2007; Badek et al. 2008; Dabert et al. 2008a,b; Vaglia et al. 2008; Yassin et al. 2008; Yoshitake et al. 2008; Adamski et al. 2009).”
Assigning morphological variants of Fucus (Fucales, Phaeophyceae) in Canadian waters to recognized species using DNA barcoding (2008, background): “Using a mitochondrial marker, Coyer et al. (2006a) suggested that all of the subspecies of F.”