The Perils of DNA Barcoding and the Need for Integrative Taxonomy

Abstract

“Your work, Sir, is both new and good, but what's new is not good and what's good is not new.” Samuel Johnson We argue that DNA barcoding has both new and good elements, but unfortunately no elements that are both. We are strongly in favor of the good idea of using DNA for identification, but that is old hat—the use of DNA for identification goes back to the beginning of molecular systematics. The DNA barcoders cannot take any credit for that. Their new idea that DNA barcoding can replace normal taxonomy for naming new species and studying their relationships is worse than bad, it is destructive. Statements by some barcoding proponents suggest an inevitable replacement of taxonomic research rather than augmentation of technology to taxonomic science, e.g., “a COI-based identification system will undoubtedly provide taxonomic resolution that exceeds that which can be achieved through morphological studies. Moreover, the generation of cox1 (= COI) profiles will provide a partial solution to the problem of the thinning ranks of morphological taxonomists by enabling a crystallization of their knowledge before they leave the field.” (Hebert et al., 2003a:319) and “If taxonomists fail to embrace molecular technology, Hebert is clear about the consequences: ‘There is no more likely death of a discipline than the failure to innovate.’” (P. Hebert as quoted by Nicholls [2003]).