DNA barcodes on their own are not enough to describe a species
Alireza Zamani1
;Zdenek Faltýnek Fric2;Hugo F. Gante3;Tapani Hopkins1;Alexander B. Orfinger4;Mark D. Scherz5;Alena Sucháčková Bartoňová2;Davide Dal Pos6
- Zoological Museum, Biodiversity Unit, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
- Department of Biodiversity and Conservation Biology, Institute of Entomology, Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, České Budějovice, Czech Republic
- Department of Biology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Royal Museum for Central Africa, Section Vertebrates, Tervuren, Belgium
- Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA; Center for Water Resources, Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
- Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Department of Biology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA
Abstract
In this article, we continue this discussion by responding to Sharkey, Brown, et al. (2021). We summarize the main points of concern raised by us (and others) regarding the ‘minimalist’ approach, expand on some points discussed earlier and explain why we think morphology should remain an integral part of species descriptions. To be clear, we oppose the view of Meierotto et al. (2019) and Sharkey, Janzen, et al. (2021) on DNA barcoding as the only source of information for species delimitation and description purposes, and not as a valuable tool in an initial survey of biodiversity.