The unholy trinity: taxonomy, species delimitation and DNA barcoding

By Robert DeSalle, Mary G. Egan, Mark Siddall. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2005

961 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Genetics, Molecular Biology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f085bc189fc168947b2929192fad3aa26665c687

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 integrative future of taxonomy (2010, methodology): “DNA sequences can be examined using non-tree based methods to provide diagnostic differences among species [49], but most frequently they are analyzed using tree-based methods to search for monophyletic groups that could represent species [22].”
Molecular identification methods of fish species: reassessment and possible applications (2009, background): “…concept of species (Mallet and Willmott 2003; Seberg et al. 2003; Will and Rubinoff 2004) and has revived the old controversy in systematics about the relative importance of DNA technology versus morphological traits (Blaxter 2003, 2004; Wheeler et al. 2004; DeSalle et al. 2005; Will et al. 2005).”
New insights into the phylogeny, systematics and DNA barcoding of Nemertea (2014, background): “However, among other factors, the functionality of DNA barcoding is contingent on two presumptions: the presence of a high-coverage barcode database, and the presence, within any given group of organisms, of a wide DNA barcoding gap – the difference between the highest intraspecific variation and th”
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): “A number of authors criticized the announcement of these ‘species’ as premature and based on simplistic analysis of limited evidence (e.g. DeSalle et al., 2005; Brower, 2006; Pons et al., 2006; Rubinoff et al., 2006; Elias et al., 2007).”
Integrative taxonomy: a multisource approach to exploring biodiversity. (2010, background): “This conclusion agrees with recent assertions that genetics may distort taxonomy when other data are neglected (15, 36, 40, 44, 65, 67).”
DNA barcoding: how it complements taxonomy, molecular phylogenetics and population genetics. (2007, methodology): “More complex methodologies for data analysis are under development, including statistical tests for species assignment [26,27], and character-based clustering methods [28].”
DNA barcoding using chitons (genus Mopalia) (2007, background): “2002a; 2002b) is rapid, avoids false-positives, retains evolutionary information contained in character-state data (Desalle et al. 2005) and is theoretically accurate independent of the degree of ‘barcoding gap’.”
Standard Percent DNA Sequence Difference for Insects Does Not Predict Species Boundaries (2006, methodology): “Therefore, phylogenetic analysis via parsimony or likelihood optimization of DNA characters that includes a thorough sampling of individuals from the focal species and potential sisterspecies should be performed (Foster et al. 2004, DeSalle et al. 2005).”
Multiple Multilocus DNA Barcodes from the Plastid Genome Discriminate Plant Species Equally Well (2008, neutral): “, [9], [16], [21]).”
Quantitative criteria for species delimitation (2010, background): “…the process by delimiting species en masse (Hebert et al. 2004), but barcodes cannot replace taxonomy for a variety of reasons, not least because they reflect a single locus or character (see Moritz & Cicero 2004, DeSalle et al. 2005, Meyer & Paulay 2005, Will et al. 2005, Elias et al. 2008).”
DNA barcoding and taxonomy in Diptera: a tale of high intraspecific variability and low identification success. (2006, methodology): “Sequences certainly improve our ability to recognize and describe species (DeSalle et al., 2005; Paquin and Hedin, 2004; Sperling, 2003; Will et al., 2005).”
Recent advances in DNA taxonomy (2007, background): “Hypothesized species entities can be further scrutinized against other data, including morphology, biogeography and others ( DeSalle et al. 2005 ), and if corroborated, these tests also provide an evolutionary justification of the procedures used for species delimitation.”
Prospects for using DNA barcoding to identify spiders in species-rich genera (2009, background): “Many authors now emphasize that the combination of morphological, molecular, and other types of data is the best approach for identifying and describing new species (Dayrat 2005; DeSalle et al. 2005; Gibbs 2009).”
Cryptic species diversity in a widespread bumble bee complex revealed using mitochondrial DNA RFLPs (2008, methodology): “As advocated by DeSalle et al. (2005)and DeSalle (2006), character-based systems, in which DNA sequence identity is used to generate discrete diagnostic characters, overcome the obstacles of distance-based barcodes and are more appropriate for species identification.”
Biological Identifications Through DNA Barcodes (2012, methodology): “An attempt was made to present a phylogenetic systematic framework for an improved barcoder as well as a taxonomic framework for interweaving classical taxonomy with the goals of ‘DNA barcoding’ [21].”
Towards writing the encyclopaedia of life: an introduction to DNA barcoding (2005, background): “…individuals in populations and across geographic ranges, the power of barcodes could well also help resolve several taxonomic problems and assist in establishing the extent of species entities, as several papers in this volume discuss (DeSalle et al. 2005; Janzen et al. 2005; Smith et al. 2005).”