More discussion of minimalist species descriptions and clarifying some misconceptions contained in Meier et al. 2021

By

Sharkey, Michael J.
Tucker, Erika
Baker, Austin
Smith, M. Alex
Ratnasingham, Sujeevan
Manjunath, Ramya
Hebert, Paul
Hallwachs, Winnie
Janzen, Daniel

Type

Article

Date of Publication

2022

Original Publication

ZooKeys

Volume

1110

Pages

135--149

Subjects

Barcode Index Numbers (BINs) , Biodiversity , Braconidae , consensus barcodes , DNA barcodes , Ichneumonoidea , taxonomic impediment

Contributed by

Pensoft Publishers

Language

English

Published by

Sofia, Bulgaria Pensoft Publishers

Identifiers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1110.85491

 

Abstract

This is a response to a preprint version of “A re-analysis of the data in Sharkey et al.’s (2021) minimalist revision reveals that BINs do not deserve names, but BOLD Systems needs a stronger commitment to open science”, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.28.441626v2. Meier et al. strongly criticized Sharkey et al.’s publication in which 403 new species were deliberately minimally described, based primarily on COI barcode sequence data. Here we respond to these criticisms. The following points are made: 1) Sharkey et al. did not equate BINs with species, as demonstrated in several examples in which multiple species were found to be in single BINs. 2) We reiterate that BINs were used as a preliminary sorting tool, just as preliminary morphological identification commonly sorts specimens based on color and size into unit trays; despite BINs and species concepts matching well over 90% of species, this matching does not equate to equality. 3) Consensus barcodes were used only to provide a diagnosis to conform to the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature just as consensus morphological diagnoses are. The barcode of a holotype is definitive and simply part of its cellular morphology. 4) Minimalist revisions will facilitate and accelerate future taxonomic research, not hinder it. 5) We refute the claim that the BOLD sequences of Plesiocoelus vanachterbergi are pseudogenes and demonstrate that they simply represent a frameshift mutation. 6) We reassert our observation that morphological evidence alone is insufficient to recognize species within species-rich higher taxa and that its usefulness lies in character states that are congruent with molecular data. 7) We show that in the cases in which COI barcodes code for the same amino acids in different putative species, data from morphology, host specificity, and other ecological traits reaffirm their utility as indicators of genetically distinct lineages.