Taxonomy and the mediocrity of DNA barcoding - Some remarks on PACKER et al. 2009: DNA barcoding and the mediocrity of morphology

Abstract

The paper is a reaction to that published by PACKER et al. (2009, Molecular Ecology Resources 9, Suppl.1: 42-50), depreciating the value of traditional - especially morphological - data in taxonomical studies as "mediocre" and boosting instead the simplistic 'barcoding' procedures as "obviously efficient". Having explicitly stated my - as a 'traditional' taxonomist - 'decalogue', I show that accusation of "lust for monopolization of knowledge" and "vociferous hostility" towards the adherents of an alternate approach is glaringly misdirected by PACKER et al. and in fact fits much better the attitude of 'barcoders' themselves; while point-by-point evaluation of the arguments and examples set forth by them allowed to refute both their main claims and confirm once again that morphological data, far from being accusable of "mediocrity", still usually (some special situations excepted) provide the most reliable source of evidence for taxonomic conclusions, whereas simplistic 'barcoding' is obviously inefficient in basic research (as opposed to some practical applications) and thence unqualified for the role of anything more than occasional preliminary 'proxy'. © Museum für Tierkunde Dresden.