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

IF 3.9 2区 生物学 Q1 EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY Cladistics Pub Date : 2021-09-06 DOI:10.1111/cla.12489
Rudolf Meier, Bonnie B. Blaimer, Eliana Buenaventura, Emily Hartop, Thomas von Rintelen, Amrita Srivathsan, Darren Yeo
{"title":"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","authors":"Rudolf Meier,&nbsp;Bonnie B. Blaimer,&nbsp;Eliana Buenaventura,&nbsp;Emily Hartop,&nbsp;Thomas von Rintelen,&nbsp;Amrita Srivathsan,&nbsp;Darren Yeo","doi":"10.1111/cla.12489","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Halting biodiversity decline is one of the most critical challenges for humanity, but monitoring biodiversity is hampered by taxonomic impediments. One impediment is the large number of undescribed species (here called “dark taxon impediment”) whereas another is caused by the large number of superficial species descriptions, that can only be resolved by consulting type specimens (“superficial description impediment”). Recently, Sharkey et al. (2021) proposed to address the dark taxon impediment for Costa Rican braconid wasps by describing 403 species based on <i>COI</i> barcode clusters (“BINs”) computed by BOLD Systems. More than 99% of the BINs (387 of 390) were converted into species by assigning binominal names (e.g. BIN “BOLD:ACM9419” becomes <i>Bracon federicomatarritai</i>) and adding a minimal diagnosis (consisting only of a consensus barcode for most species). We here show that many of Sharkey et al.’s species are unstable when the underlying data are analyzed using different species delimitation algorithms. Add the insufficiently informative diagnoses, and many of these species will become the next “superficial description impediment” for braconid taxonomy because they will have to be tested and redescribed after obtaining sufficient evidence for confidently delimiting species. We furthermore show that Sharkey et al.’s approach of using consensus barcodes as diagnoses is not functional because it cannot be applied consistently. Lastly, we reiterate that <i>COI</i> alone is not suitable for delimiting and describing species, and voice concerns over Sharkey et al.’s uncritical use of BINs because they are calculated by a proprietary algorithm (RESL) that uses a mixture of public and private data. We urge authors, reviewers and editors to maintain high standards in taxonomy by only publishing new species that are rigorously delimited with open-access tools and supported by publicly available evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":50688,"journal":{"name":"Cladistics","volume":"38 2","pages":"264-275"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/cla.12489","citationCount":"67","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cladistics","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cla.12489","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 67

Abstract

Halting biodiversity decline is one of the most critical challenges for humanity, but monitoring biodiversity is hampered by taxonomic impediments. One impediment is the large number of undescribed species (here called “dark taxon impediment”) whereas another is caused by the large number of superficial species descriptions, that can only be resolved by consulting type specimens (“superficial description impediment”). Recently, Sharkey et al. (2021) proposed to address the dark taxon impediment for Costa Rican braconid wasps by describing 403 species based on COI barcode clusters (“BINs”) computed by BOLD Systems. More than 99% of the BINs (387 of 390) were converted into species by assigning binominal names (e.g. BIN “BOLD:ACM9419” becomes Bracon federicomatarritai) and adding a minimal diagnosis (consisting only of a consensus barcode for most species). We here show that many of Sharkey et al.’s species are unstable when the underlying data are analyzed using different species delimitation algorithms. Add the insufficiently informative diagnoses, and many of these species will become the next “superficial description impediment” for braconid taxonomy because they will have to be tested and redescribed after obtaining sufficient evidence for confidently delimiting species. We furthermore show that Sharkey et al.’s approach of using consensus barcodes as diagnoses is not functional because it cannot be applied consistently. Lastly, we reiterate that COI alone is not suitable for delimiting and describing species, and voice concerns over Sharkey et al.’s uncritical use of BINs because they are calculated by a proprietary algorithm (RESL) that uses a mixture of public and private data. We urge authors, reviewers and editors to maintain high standards in taxonomy by only publishing new species that are rigorously delimited with open-access tools and supported by publicly available evidence.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对Sharkey等人数据的重新分析。(2021)的极简主义修订表明,bin不值得命名,但BOLD系统需要对开放科学做出更大的承诺。
阻止生物多样性的下降是人类面临的最关键的挑战之一,但生物多样性的监测受到分类障碍的阻碍。一个障碍是大量未描述的物种(这里称为“暗分类群障碍”),而另一个障碍是由大量肤浅的物种描述引起的,这只能通过咨询模式标本来解决(“肤浅描述障碍”)。最近,Sharkey等人。(2021)提出通过BOLD Systems计算的COI条形码簇(“bin”)来描述403个物种,以解决哥斯达黎加bronid胡蜂的黑暗分类障碍。超过99%的BIN(390个中的387个)通过分配双名名(例如BIN“BOLD:ACM9419”变成Bracon federicomatarritai)和添加最小诊断(仅由大多数物种的共识条形码组成)被转换为物种。我们在这里展示了许多Sharkey等人。当使用不同的物种划分算法分析底层数据时,物种是不稳定的。再加上信息不足的诊断,这些物种中的许多将成为下一个“肤浅描述障碍”,因为在获得足够的证据来自信地划分物种之后,它们将不得不进行测试和重新描述。我们进一步证明了Sharkey等人。使用共识条形码作为诊断的方法是无效的,因为它不能一致地应用。最后,我们重申单独的COI不适合用于划分和描述物种,并对Sharkey等人表示担忧。因为它们是由一种混合使用公共和私有数据的专有算法(RESL)计算出来的。我们敦促作者、审稿人和编辑在分类学上保持高标准,只发表用开放获取工具严格划分并有公开证据支持的新物种。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cladistics
Cladistics 生物-进化生物学
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
5.60%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: Cladistics publishes high quality research papers on systematics, encouraging debate on all aspects of the field, from philosophy, theory and methodology to empirical studies and applications in biogeography, coevolution, conservation biology, ontogeny, genomics and paleontology. Cladistics is read by scientists working in the research fields of evolution, systematics and integrative biology and enjoys a consistently high position in the ISI® rankings for evolutionary biology.
期刊最新文献
Revisiting the phylogeny of royal ferns (Osmundales) through the lens of character dependence and restudied fossil taxa questions existing family and subfamily concepts. [genus]_[species]; Presenting phylogenies to facilitate synthesis. Body size and evolutionary rate analyses reveal complex evolutionary history of Alvarezsauria. Issue Information Incomplete barriers to heterospecific mating among Somatochlora species (Odonata: Corduliidae) as revealed in multi-gene phylogenies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1