The DOI matches its Crossref record; 159 of the 159 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Multi‐locus species delimitation in closely related animals and fungi: one marker is not enough
Abstract
Despite taxonomy’s 250‐year history, the past 20 years have borne witness to remarkable advances in technology and techniques, as well as debate. DNA barcoding has generated a substantial proportion of this debate, with its proposition that a single mitochondrial sequence will consistently identify and delimit species, replacing more evidence‐rich and time‐intensive methods. Although mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) has since been the focus of voluminous discussion and case studies, little effort has been made to comprehensively evaluate its success in delimiting closely related species. We have conducted the first broadly comparative literature review addressing the efficacy of molecular markers for delimiting such species over a broad taxonomic range. By considering only closely related species, we sought to avoid confusion of success rates with those due to deeply divergent taxa. We also address whether increased population‐level or geographic sampling affects delimitation success. Based on the results from 101 studies, we found that all marker groups had approximately equal success rates (∼70%) in delimiting closely related species and that the use of additional loci increased average delimitation success. We also found no relationship between increased sampling of intraspecific variability and delimitation success. Ultimately, our results support a multi‐locus integrative approach to species delimitation and 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
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
Baltosser, W. H., & Zar, J. H. (1996) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/2265725 · Cited by 35,166
Zhang, K., Wang, J., Ge, Y., Ma, J., & Zhou, Q. (2022) · PubMed · doi:10.5281/zenodo.15145663 · Cited by 15,604
Molecular Evolutionary Genetics
Nei, M. (1987) · Columbia University Press eBooks · doi:10.7312/nei-92038 · Cited by 15,271
Biological identifications through DNA barcodes
Hebert, P. D. N., Cywinska, A., Ball, S. L., & deWaard, J. R. (2003) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2218 · Cited by 13,376
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
bold : The Barcode of Life Data System (http://www.barcodinglife.org)
RATNASINGHAM, S., & HEBERT, P. D. N. (2007) · Molecular Ecology Notes · doi:10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01678.x · Cited by 6,376
Kocher, T. D., Thomas, W. K., Meyer, A., Edwards, S. V., Pääbo, S., Villablanca, F. X., & Wilson, A. C. (1989) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.86.16.6196 · Cited by 4,969
Barcoding animal life: cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 divergences among closely related species
Hebert, P. D. N., Ratnasingham, S., & de Waard, J. R. (2003) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsbl.2003.0025 · Cited by 4,466
DNA barcoding Australia's fish species
Ward, R. D., Zemlak, T. S., Innes, B. H., Last, P. R., & Hebert, P. D. N. (2005) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1716 · Cited by 4,332
Cited by
How to fail at species delimitation
Carstens, B. C., Pelletier, T. A., Reid, N. M., & Satler, J. D. (2013) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.12413 · Cited by 1,248
The seven deadly sins of DNA barcoding
Collins, R. A., & Cruickshank, R. H. (2013) · Molecular Ecology Resources · doi:10.1111/1755-0998.12046 · Cited by 560
Metabarcoding vs. morphological identification to assess diatom diversity in environmental studies
Zimmermann, J., Glöckner, G., Jahn, R., Enke, N., & Gemeinholzer, B. (2015) · Molecular Ecology Resources · doi:10.1111/1755-0998.12336 · Cited by 317
Insights into the genus Diaporthe: phylogenetic species delimitation in the D. eres species complex
Udayanga, D., Castlebury, L. A., Rossman, A. Y., Chukeatirote, E., & Hyde, K. D. (2014) · Fungal Diversity · doi:10.1007/s13225-014-0297-2 · Cited by 279
Metadata
- Authors
- DUPUIS, J. R., ROE, A. D., & SPERLING, F. A. H.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-08-14
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- 4422-4436
- ISSN
- 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-294X
- OpenAlex
- W1520448637
- Cited by
- 338
- References
- 159
- FWCI
- 13.29
- 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: Multi‐locus species delimitation in closely related animals and fungi: one marker is not enough. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-294x.2012.05642.x
- The paper
- DUPUIS, J. R., ROE, A. D., & SPERLING, F. A. H. (2012). Multi‐locus species delimitation in closely related animals and fungi: one marker is not enough. Molecular Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294x.2012.05642.x
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.
