Quentin D. Wheeler

TL;DR: The goals here are to discuss some problems with one criterion in particular, the so-called "commonality principle" (Eldredge, 1979), and to develop a general method of character analysis based on out-group comparison, which receives wide support in both botanical and zoological circles.

TL;DR: Phylogenetic relationships among the holometabolous insect orders were inferred from cladistic analysis of nucleotide sequences of 18S ribosomal DNA (rDNA) and 28S rDNA and morphological characters.

TL;DR: The compatibility of the phylogenetic species concept with various biological needs for species and its use at the exclusion of alternative species concepts are discussed.

Abstract: SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY that accompany this article, Will and Hebert respond to 10 questions selected by V.S. to reflect the balance of issues raised by the PEET audience (Hebert and Gregory, 2005; Will et al., 2005). Alternatively, you can follow the original debate as all 2 hours of the complete symposium are available to watch as a streaming video from http:// streamer.cen.uiuc.edu/seminars/peet/peet2-3-4.wmv (Windows Media Player required). A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS R EFERENCES Anonymous. 2003. What’s in a name? Economist 366:62. Blaxter, M. 2003. Counting angels with DNA. Nature 421:122– Godfray, H. C. J., and S. Knapp. 2004. Introduction [to a theme issue ’Taxonomy for the twenty-first century’]. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Gotelli, N. J. 2004. A taxonomic wish-list for community ecology. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 359:585–597. Hebert, P. D. N., A. Cywinska, S. L. Ball, and J. R. deWaard. 2003. Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270:313–322. Hebert, P. D. N., and T. R. Gregory. 2005. The promise of DNA barcoding for taxonomy. Syst. Biol. 54:852–859. Hebert, P. D. N., M. Y. Stoeckle, T. S. Zemlak, and C. M. Francis. 2004. Identification of birds through DNA barcodes. PLoS Biol. 2:1657– Holmes, B. 2004. Barcode me. New Scientist 182:32–35. Kurosawa, O., and M. Washizu. 2004. Acquisition and amplification of targeted position of electrostatically stretched DNA. J. Inst. Electro- stat. Jpn. 28:59–64. Lipscomb, D. L., N. Platnick, and Q. D. Wheeler. 2003. The intellectual content of taxonomy: a comment on DNA taxonomy. TREE 18:65–66. May, R. M. 2004. Tomorrow’s taxonomy: Collecting new species in the field will remain the rate-limiting step. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Moritz, C., and C. Cicero. 2004. DNA barcoding: Promise and pitfalls. PLoS Biol. 2:1529–1531. NCBI. 2005. National Center for Biological Information. Gen- Bank statistics available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/About/ tools/restable stat.html. Nicholls, H. 2003. DNA: The barcode of life? Originally published on behalf of Elsevier by BioMedNet. Now available at http://www. uoguelph.ca/∼phebert/media/BioMedNet%20News%20article. pdf. Pennisi, E. 2003. Modernizing the tree of life. Science 300:1692–1697. Rodman, J. E., and J. H. Cody. 2003. The taxonomic impediment over- come: NSF’s Partnerships for Enhancing Expertise in Taxonomy (PEET) as a model. Syst. Biol. 52:428–435. Schindel, D. E., and S. E. Miller. 2005. DNA barcoding a useful tool for taxonomists. Nature 435:17. Tautz, D., P. Arctander, A. Minelli, R. H. Thomas, and A. P. Vogler. 2003. A plea for DNA taxonomy. TREE 18:70–74. Taylor, R. W. 1983. Descriptive taxonomy: Past, present, and future. Pages 93–134 in Australian systematic entomology: A bicentenary perspective (E. Highley, and R. W. Taylor, eds.). CSIRO, Canberra. Vincent, M., Y. Xu, and H. Kong. 2004. Helicase-dependent isothermal DNA amplification. EMBO Rep. 5:795–800. Will, K. W., B. D. Mishler, and Q. D. Wheeler. 2005. The perils of DNA barcoding and the need for integrative taxonomy. Syst. Biol. 54:844– First submitted 23 March 2005; reviews returned 9 June 2005; final acceptance 12 July 2005 Associate Editor: Vincent Savolainen Syst. Biol. 54(5):844–851, 2005 c Society of Systematic Biologists Copyright ISSN: 1063-5157 print / 1076-836X online DOI: 10.1080/10635150500354878 The Perils of DNA Barcoding and the Need for Integrative Taxonomy K IPLING W. W ILL , 1 B RENT D. M ISHLER , 2 AND Q UENTIN D. W HEELER 3 ESPM Department—Insect Biology and 2 Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, UK “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 in- evitable replacement of taxonomic research rather than augmentation of technology to taxonomic science, e.g., “a COI-based identification system will undoubtedly Downloaded from http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/ at UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY on August 29, 2013 I thank Kipling Will and Paul Hebert for taking part in the de- bate, Mike Irwin and Gail Kampmeier for organizing the fifth biennial PEET conference, and the National Science Foundation for financially supporting this meeting. Kevin Cummings, Martin Hauser, Andrew Miller, Mark Wetzle, and Kazunori Yoshizawa provided specimens and in some cases unpublished DNA sequences that were used dur- ing the species identification demonstration in this session. Martin Hauser, Mathys Meyer, Floyd Shockley, Daniela Takiya, and Jamie Zahniser assisted in the running of the debate. The symposium video was filmed and edited by Ritch Strom on behalf of the office of con- tinuing education at the University of Illinois. Rasplus Jean-Yves, Kevin Johnson, Rod Page, Diana Percy, Vincent Savolainen, Jason Weckstein, and an anonymous reviewer provided comments on an earlier (and considerably different) version of this manuscript. This work was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (DEB-0107891). VOL. 54

TL;DR: In the debate that accompany this article, Will and Hebert respond to 10 questions selected by the PEET audience, the promise of DNA barcoding for taxonomy is described as a useful tool for taxonomists.