The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
DNA Barcoding and Taxonomy in Diptera: A Tale of High Intraspecific Variability and Low Identification Success
Abstract
DNA barcoding and DNA taxonomy have recently been proposed as solutions to the crisis of taxonomy and received significant attention from scientific journals, grant agencies, natural history museums, and mainstream media. Here, we test two key claims of molecular taxonomy using 1333 mitochondrial COI sequences for 449 species of Diptera. We investigate whether sequences can be used for species identification ("DNA barcoding") and find a relatively low success rate (< 70%) based on tree-based and newly proposed species identification criteria. Misidentifications are due to wide overlap between intra- and interspecific genetic variability, which causes 6.5% of all query sequences to have allospecific or a mixture of allo- and conspecific (3.6%) best-matching barcodes. Even when two COI sequences are identical, there is a 6% chance that they belong to different species. We also find that 21% of all species lack unique barcodes when consensus sequences of all conspecific sequences are used. Lastly, we test whether DNA sequences yield an unambiguous species-level taxonomy when sequence profiles are assembled based on pairwise distance thresholds. We find many sequence triplets for which two of the three pairwise distances remain below the threshold, whereas the third exceeds it; i.e., it is impossible to consistently delimit species based on pairwise distances. Furthermore, for species profiles based on a 3% threshold, only 47% of all profiles are consistent with currently accepted species limits, 20% contain more than one species, and 33% only some sequences from one species; i.e., adopting such a DNA taxonomy would require the redescription of a large proportion of the known species, thus worsening the taxonomic impediment. We conclude with an outlook on the prospects of obtaining complete barcode databases and the future use of DNA sequences in a modern integrative taxonomy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
DNA barcoding: error rates based on comprehensive sampling
Meyer, C. P., & Paulay, G. (2005) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030422 · Cited by 1,957
Cited by
Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination
Rader, R., Bartomeus, I., Garibaldi, L. A., Garratt, M. P. D., Howlett, B. G., Winfree, R., Cunningham, S. A., Mayfield, M. M., Arthur, A. D., Andersson, G. K. S., et al. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1517092112 · Cited by 1,000
The campaign to DNA barcode all fishes, FISH‐BOL
Ward, R. D., Hanner, R., & Hebert, P. D. N. (2009) · Journal of Fish Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2008.02080.x · Cited by 964
Delimiting Species without Monophyletic Gene Trees
Knowles, L. L., & Carstens, B. C. (2007) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1080/10635150701701091 · Cited by 788
Does the DNA barcoding gap exist? – a case study in blue butterflies (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae)
Wiemers, M., & Fiedler, K. (2007) · Frontiers in Zoology · doi:10.1186/1742-9994-4-8 · Cited by 519
Marine Biodiversity, Biogeography, Deep-Sea Gradients, and Conservation
Costello, M. J., & Chaudhary, C. (2017) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2017.04.060 · Cited by 429
Metadata
- Authors
- Meier, R., Shiyang, K., Vaidya, G., & Ng, P. K. L.
- Venue
- Systematic Biology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-10-01
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 715-728
- ISSN
- 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
- 1076-836X
- OpenAlex
- W2108268490
- Cited by
- 1,401
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 37.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: DNA Barcoding and Taxonomy in Diptera: A Tale of High Intraspecific Variability and Low Identification Success. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10635150600969864
- The paper
- Meier, R., Shiyang, K., Vaidya, G., & Ng, P. K. L. (2006). DNA Barcoding and Taxonomy in Diptera: A Tale of High Intraspecific Variability and Low Identification Success. Systematic Biology. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150600969864
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.