[Taxacom] DNA barcoding

[Stephen Thorpe]

Dear Bob,
I don't think anyone, except perhaps a few extremist minorities,  
really doubts that barcoding and associated technologies have the  
potential to be very useful. Indeed, I myself, would very much like to  
see more effort going in to the association of larvae with adults, and  
males with females in Hymenoptera and other groups where the sexes  
have no morphological similarity at the species level, using these  
techniques. The debate, as I did try to stress in  previous email, is  
just over how best to integrate all aspects of systematics. I would  
ask if it is really sensible to be working hard at this point in time  
to uncover more and more cryptic species, when certainly here in N.Z.,  
and no doubt overseas more so (in the tropics anyway), there are many  
easily recognisable new genera even, sitting idle for decades in  
collections without any BASIC taxonomy being done on them? Even in the  
urban Campus where I am at present located, it is currently not  
possible to put names on all the tiny (but easily morphologically  
recognisable) species of insects one can find. I cetainly would not  
like to see a significant chunk of systematics funding taken away from  
such basic taxonomic/faunistic work, and instead put to uncovering  
multitudes of cryptic microgastrine species!
Cheers,
Stephen

Quoting Robert Hanner <rhanner at uoguelph.ca>:

> Dear Mr. Thorpe,
>
> A small but vocal community of critics have continually tried to   
> distort what it is that barcoding seeks to achieve. Limitations of  
> the  approach are well known, but a lack of voucher specimens or  
> reliance  on collections is not one of them.
>
> In fact, the barcode community is responsibe for the first concerted  
>  effort to make structured linkages between GenBank Accessions and   
> Museum Voucher Specimens. In this respect, we have worked in close   
> collaboration with leaders in the Museum Informatics community to   
> build these linkages (particularly with Arctos).
>
> The ultimate accessibility of biological identifications by   
> nonspecialists through molecular data is palpable and as a result,  
> it  is driving a renaissance in taxonomic funding in Canada.  
> Laurence  Packer and colleagues has an interesting paper coming out  
> in the  Canadian Journal of Zoology which shows how barcoding is  
> generating  support for a discipline that has been on a starvation  
> diet for  several decades in this country. I will try to remember to  
> forward the  citation when it becomes available...
>
> In the mean time, I attach a few articles that might be of interest.
>
>
>
> Kind Regards, -Bob
>
> Robert Hanner, Associate Director
> Canadian Barcode of Life Network
> Biodiversity Institute of Ontario &
> Department of Integrative Biology
> University of Guelph
> Guelph, ON N1G 2W1
> Canada
>
> Phone: 519-824-4120 x53479
> Fax: 519-767-1656
> Email: rhanner at uoguelph.ca
>
>>
>> From: Stephen Thorpe <s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz>
>> Date: Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 1:06 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Propaganda (was: Molecules vs. Morphology)
>> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>
>>
>> I think the debate (or "fight") is over the appropriate relative
>> proportions of molecular vs morphological. The Xenoturbella example
>> perhaps betrays a tendency of some to rush ahead with molecular work
>> as if it holds all the answers. Most worrying in this regard, although
>> I haven't looked at the details, and only know of it second hand, is
>> an apparently MASSIVELY funded project in Canada which (again
>> apparently) advertises itself something along the lines of "no more
>> need for museum specimens, DNA barcoding is all we need"! The fact
>> that funders are willing to invest massive amounts on development of
>> such ideas is disturbing!
>>
>
>



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.