The promise of DNA barcoding for taxonomy

Systematic Biology

Volumn 54, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 852-859

  Hebert, Paul D N ^a   Gregory, T Ryan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLASSIFICATION; DNA SEQUENCE; GENETIC DATABASE; METHODOLOGY; REVIEW; SPECIES DIFFERENCE;

CLASSIFICATION; DATABASES, GENETIC; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA; SPECIES SPECIFICITY;

EID: 31344432889     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: 1076836X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150500354886     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Alroy, J. 2002. How many named species are valid? Proc. Natl Acad Sci. USA 99:3706-3711.
2. Ball, S. L., P. D. N. Hebert, S. K. Burian, and J. M. Webb. 2005. Biological identifications of mayflies (Ephemeroptera) using DNA barcodes. JNABS 24:508-524.
3. Barrett, R. D. H., and P. D. N. Hebert. 2005. Identifying spiders through DNA barcodes. Can J. Zool. 83:481-491.
4. Beskansky, N. J., D. W. Severson, and M. T. Ferdig. 2003. DNA barcoding of parasites and invertebrate disease vectors: What you don't know can hurt you. Trends Parasit. 19:545-546.
5. Dunn, C. P. 2003. Keeping taxonomy based in morphology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18:270-271.
6. Ebach, M. C., and C. Holdrege. 2005. DNA barcoding is no substitute for taxonomy. Nature 434:697.
7. Gaston, K. J., and M. A. O'Neill. 2004. Automated species identification: Why not? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 359:655-667.
8. Godfray, H. C. J. 2002. Challenges for taxonomy. Nature 417:17-19.
9. Hebert, P. D. N., and R. D. H. Barrett. 2005. Reply to the comment by L. Prendini on "Identifying spiders through DNA barcodes." Can. J. Zool. 83:505-506.
10. Hebert, P. D. N., A. Cywinska, S. L. Ball, and J. R. deWaard. 2003. Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270:313-321.
11. Hebert, P. D. N., E. H. Penton, J. M. Burns, D. H. Janzen, and W. Hallwachs. 2004a. Ten species in one: DNA barcoding reveals cryptic species in the neotropical skipper butterfly Astrapes fulgerator. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101:14812-14817.
12. Hebert, P. D. N., M. Y. Stoeckle, T. S. Zemlak, and C. M. Francis. 2004b. Identification of birds through DNA barcodes. PLoS Biology 2:1657-1663.
13. Hogg, I. D., and P. D. N. Hebert. 2004. Biological identifications of springtails (Hexapoda: Collembola) from the Canadian arctic using mitochondrial DNA barcodes. Can. J. Zool. 82:749-754.
14. Janzen, D. J. 2004. Now is the time. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 359:731-732.
15. Janzen, D. H. M. Hajibabaei, J. M. Burns, W. Hallwachs, E. Remigio, and P. D. N. Hebert. 2005. Wedding biodiversity inventory of a large and complex lepidoptera fauna with DNA barcoding. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B In press.
16. Kress, W. J., K. J. Wurdack, E. A. Zimmer, L. A. Weigt, and D. H. Janzen. 2005. Use of DNA barcodes to identify flowering plants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci USA 102:8369-8374.
17. Lipscomb, D., N. Platnick, and Q. Wheeler. 2003. The intellectual content of taxonomy: A comment on DNA taxonomy. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18:65-66.
18. Mallet, J., and K. Willmott. 2003. Taxonomy: Renaissance or Tower of Babel? Trends Ecol. Evol. 18:57-59.
19. Marko, P. B., S. C. Lee, A. M. Rice, J. M. Gramling, T. M. Fitzhenry, J. S. McAlister, G. R. Horn, and A. L. Moran. 2004. Mislabelling of a depleted ref fish. Nature 430:309-310.
20. Marshall, E. 2005. Will DNA bar codes breathe new life into classification. Science 307:1037.
21. Seberg, O., C. J. Humphries, S. Knapp, D. W Stevenson, G. Petersen, N. Scharff, and N. M. Andersen. 2003. Shortcuts in systematics? A commentary on DNA-based taxonomy. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18:63-65.
22. Smith, M. A., B. L. Fisher, and P. D. N. Hebert. 2005. DNA barcoding for effective biodiversity assessment of a hyperdiverse arthropod group: The ants of Madagascar. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B In press.
23. Smith, V. S. 2005. DNA barcoding: Perspectives from a "Partnerships for Enhancing Expertise in Taxonomy" (PEET) debate. Syst. Biol. 54:841-844.
24. Stoeckle, M. 2003. Taxonomy, DNA, and the bar code of life. BioScience 53:2-3.
25. Wahlberg, N., R. Oliveira, and J. A. Scott. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships of Phycoides butterfly species (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae): Complex mtDNA variation and species delimitations. Syst. Entomol. 28:1-17.
26. Ward, R. D., T. S. Zemlak, B. H. Innes, P. R. Last, and P. D. N. Hebert. 2005. A start to DNA barcoding Australia's fish species. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B In press.
27. Wheeler, Q. D. 2004. Taxonomic triage and the poverty of phylogeny. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 359:571-583.
28. Will, K. W., B. D. Mishler, and Q. D. Wheeler. 2005. The perils of DNA barcoding and the need for integrative taxonomy. Syst. Biol. 54:844-851.
29. Will, K. W., and D. Rubinoff. 2004. Myth of the molecule: DNA barcodes for species cannot replace morphology for identification and classification. Cladistics 20:47-55.