DNA barcoding is useful for taxonomy: a reply to Ebach
DNA barcoding is all too often derided by taxonomists with little understanding of how far this emerging subdiscipline of systematics has progressed since it was proposed by Hebert et al. (2003). A prime example is Ebach’s factually incorrect and misleading recent correspondence (Ebach 2011). Ebach...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.308.9548 http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2011/f/zt02772p068.pdf |
| Summary: | DNA barcoding is all too often derided by taxonomists with little understanding of how far this emerging subdiscipline of systematics has progressed since it was proposed by Hebert et al. (2003). A prime example is Ebach’s factually incorrect and misleading recent correspondence (Ebach 2011). Ebach and I agree on one point: indeed many readers of Zootaxa would have cringed as they read his letter, though perhaps the cause was a tasteless joke. For brevity I will address only three key points he raised about the uses for DNA barcoding. First, bird strike is no laughing matter as the 155 people who survived US Airways Flight 1549 ditching into the Hudson River in January 2009 will attest. Jokes about “pâté [de] foie turbine ” do not do justice to the gravity of the subject. Subsequent DNA barcoding analysis of bird remains identified the culprits as Canada Goose (Branta canadensis Linnaeus, 1758) (Marra et al. 2009). Fortunately aviation authorities recognize the importance of bird species identification following bird strike as it allows them to tailor risk management measures to particular species, and they are funding ongoing research in this area. Second, the recent literature contains many examples of taxonomists having embraced DNA barcoding to assist with their research. Ebach’s claim that none would be interested is patently untrue. Recent examples include taxonomic papers on oomycetes (Bala et al. 2010), limpets (Johnson et al., 2008), collembolans (Porco et al. 2010), caddisflies (Pauls et al. 2010) and moths (Hausmann et al. 2010). In addition, taxonomists are using barcoding to associate adult and immature |
|---|