The omission of critical data in the pursuit of ‘revolutionary’ methods to accelerate the description of species

Zamani, Alireza; Vahtera, Varpu; Sääksjärvi, Ilari E.; Scherz, Mark D.

doi:10.1111/syen.12444

Cited by 37 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All life stages were examined using compound microscopy with phase contrast and Nomarski optics up to oil immersion (x1000). For descriptive taxonomy both line drawings and photographs are used: neither alone is satisfactory (Cranston 2019a) and the trend to photography alone is unacceptable (Zamani et al 2020).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life histories of Paucispinigera Freeman, Paraborniella Freeman and Paratendipes Kieffer (Diptera: Chironomidae) with phylogenetic considerations

Cranston

2020

Zootaxa

892

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The immature stages of the New Zealand endemic Paucispinigera Freeman and Paraborniella Freeman, endemic to Australia, are described fully for the first time. A new species of Paratendipes Kieffer endemic to Australia is described in all life stages. Morphological support from larvae for placement in a ‘Microtendipes’ group in tribe Chironomini includes the 6-segmented antenna with Lauterborn organs on the 2nd and 3rd segments, and a well-demarcated, multi-toothed ventromentum. The pupa has a few-branched thoracic horn and the distribution of taeniate L-setae is informative. Significant differentiating characters of the adult male include the form of tibial apices and the structures of superior and median volsellae in the genitalia. In the wing of Paucispinigera, the squama lacks setae, contrary to the original description, and unusually has vein M1+2 setose in both sexes and also the M3+4 setose in the female. An apical spine on the gonostylus of Paucispinigera is unusual. The female genitalia are described here for the first time but lack phylogenetically informative variation. An Australian species of the widespread genus Paratendipes Kieffer, described here as Paratendipes sinespina sp. n., is provided for comparison. Paucispinigera and Paraborniella each warrant independent generic rank.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life histories of Paucispinigera Freeman, Paraborniella Freeman and Paratendipes Kieffer (Diptera: Chironomidae) with phylogenetic considerations

Cranston

2020

Zootaxa

892

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If the validation involves morphological data, there are additional benefits. The inclusion of morphological information facilities the comparison with described species, it allows for the inclusion of historical specimens that lack DNA of sufficient quality, and assures that biologists who have no access to molecular data can participate in the biodiversity discovery process (Zamani, A., Vahtera, V., et al 2021). This is particularly important given that many biologists in biodiverse countries have limited access to sequencing data (Zamani, A., Vahtera, V., et al 2021).…”

Section: Many Bins Are Unstablementioning

confidence: 99%

“…More sequencing will almost certainly reveal synonymous nucleotide changes in barcodes for the more than 200 species of braconids for which Sharkey et al (2021) only provide consensus barcodes as diagnoses; i.e., these new polymorphisms will falsify the diagnoses. By omitting morphological information for these species, Sharkey et al also created a parallel taxonomy that does not allow for cross-referencing the new species to the described fauna (Ahrens et al, 2021; Zamani et al, 2021). It furthermore interferes with the work of those biologists, policymakers, and citizen scientists in biodiverse countries who have no access to molecular data (Zamani et al, 2021).…”

Section: Can Species Diagnoses Consist Of Only a Consensus Barcode?mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Meier

Blaimer

Buenaventura

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Halting biodiversity decline is one of the most critical challenges for humanity, but biodiversity assessment and monitoring are hampered by taxonomic impediments. We here distinguish between a "dark taxon impediment" caused by a large number of undescribed species and a "superficial description impediment" caused by species descriptions so imprecise that type specimens have to be consulted in order to resolve species identities. Recently, Sharkey et al. (2021) proposed to address the dark taxon impediment for Costa Rican braconid wasps by describing 403 species based on barcode clusters ("BINs") computed by BOLD Systems. The default assumption of the revision is that BIN=Species (e.g., BOLD:ACM9419 becomes Bracon federicomatarritai Sharkey, sp. nov.) and therefore the diagnoses of most species consist only of a consensus barcode. We here argue that this type of "minimalist revision" is unnecessary and undesirable. It is unnecessary because barcode clusters (e.g. BINs) already provide grouping statements that overcome many of the obstacles associated with dark taxon impediments. However, minimalist revisions are also undesirable and problematic because the diagnoses are only based on one character system - that in the case of Sharkey et al. was poorly analyzed. Furthermore, the revision relies on units that violate basic rules of reproducibility because the BINs were delimited by a proprietary algorithm (RESL) that is applied to a mixture of public and private data. Here, we illustrate that many of the BINs described as species are unstable when the available public data are reanalyzed, reiterate that COI mostly measures time of divergence, and that BOLD Systems violates key principles of open science. We conclude by urging authors, reviewers, editors, and grantors to only publish and fund projects that adhere to modern standards of reproducibility.

show abstract

“…However, rapid increases in the amount of data generated through DNA barcoding, as well as growing use of multiple gene regions for identifications and phylogenetic studies, are predicted to overcome these restrictions and expand the use of DNA barcoding for insect identification and classification ( Rota et al 2016 ). DNA barcoding may also inform interim taxonomic references before formal names are available, especially for diverse and/or understudied taxa ( Novotny and Miller 2014 , Meierotto et al 2019 , Zamani et al 2021 ).…”

Section: Team 2 Stance: Molecular Techniques Are the Best Taxonomic Approach To Identify And Classify Insectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technological Advances to Address Current Issues in Entomology: 2020 Student Debates

Bernaola

Darlington

Britt

et al. 2021

Journal of Insect Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 2020 Student Debates of the Entomological Society of America (ESA) were live-streamed during the Virtual Annual Meeting to debate current, prominent entomological issues of interest to members. The Student Debates Subcommittee of the National ESA Student Affairs Committee coordinated the student efforts throughout the year and hosted the live event. This year, four unbiased introductory speakers provided background for each debate topic while four multi-university teams were each assigned a debate topic under the theme ‘Technological Advances to Address Current Issues in Entomology’. The two debate topics selected were as follows: 1) What is the best taxonomic approach to identify and classify insects? and 2) What is the best current technology to address the locust swarms worldwide? Unbiased introduction speakers and debate teams began preparing approximately six months before the live event. During the live event, teams shared their critical thinking and practiced communication skills by defending their positions on either taxonomical identification and classification of insects or managing the damaging outbreaks of locusts in crops.

show abstract

The omission of critical data in the pursuit of ‘revolutionary’ methods to accelerate the description of species

Cited by 37 publications

References 34 publications

Life histories of Paucispinigera Freeman, Paraborniella Freeman and Paratendipes Kieffer (Diptera: Chironomidae) with phylogenetic considerations

Life histories of Paucispinigera Freeman, Paraborniella Freeman and Paratendipes Kieffer (Diptera: Chironomidae) with phylogenetic considerations

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

Technological Advances to Address Current Issues in Entomology: 2020 Student Debates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About