After 7 years and 1000 citations: Comparative assessment of the DNA barcoding and the DNA taxonomy proposals for taxonomists and non-taxonomists

References

• Anderson S. 1974. Some suggested concepts for improving taxonomic dialogue. Syst Zool. 23:58–70.
   Google Scholar
• Aravind K, Ravikanth G, Uma Shaanker R, Chandrashekara K, Kumar ARV, Ganeshaiah KN. 2007. DNA barcoding: An exercise in futility or utility. Curr Sci. 92:1213–1216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker CS. 2008. A truer measure of the market: The molecular ecology of fisheries and wildlife trade. Mol Ecol. 17:3985–3998.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker RH, Yu X, DeSalle R. 1998. Assessing the relative contribution of molecular and morphological characters in simultaneous analysis trees. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 9:427–436.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker AJ, Tavares ES, Elbourne RF. 2009. Countering criticisms of single mitochondrial DNA gene barcoding in birds. Mol Ecol Resour. 9:257–268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balakrishnan R. 2005. Species concepts, species boundaries and species identification: A view from the tropics. Syst Biol. 54:689–693.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartlett SE, Davidson WS. 1992. FINS (forensically informative nucleotide sequencing): A procedure for identifying the animal origin of biological specimens. Biotechniques. 12:408–411.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauchot ML, Pras A. 1980. Guide des poissons marins d'Europe. Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé (in French).
   Google Scholar
• Bely AE, Weisblat DA. 2006. Lessons from leeches: A call for DNA barcoding in the lab. Evol Dev. 8:491–501.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bickford D, Lohman DJ, Sodhi NS, Ng PKL, Meier R, Winker K, Ingram KK, Das I. 2007. Cryptic species as a window on diversity and conservation. Trends Ecol Evol. 22:148–155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birstein VJ, DeSalle R, Doukakis P, Hanner R, Ruban GI, Wong E. 2009. Testing taxonomic boundaries and the limit of DNA barcoding in the Siberian sturgeon, acipenser baerii. Mitochondrial DNA. 20:110–118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blaxter M. 2004. The promise of a DNA taxonomy. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 359:669–679.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blaxter M, Floyd R. 2003. Molecular taxonomics for biodiversity surveys: Already a reality. Trends Ecol Evol. 18:268–269.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borisenko AV, Sones JE, Hebert PDN. 2009. The front-end logistics of DNA barcoding: Challenges and prospects. Mol Ecol Resour. 9:27–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowman DD. 2005. What's in a name?. Trends Parasitol. 21:267–269.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brökeland W, George KH. 2009. Editorial: Deep-sea taxonomy:—A contribution to our knowledge of biodiversity. Zootaxa. 2096:6–8.
   Google Scholar
• Brummitt RK, Sosef MSM. 1998. Paraphyletic taxa are inherent in Linnaean classification—A reply to Freudenstein. Taxon. 47:411–412.
   Google Scholar
• Chang C-H, Rougerie R, Chen J-H. 2009. Identifying earthworms through DNA barcodes: Pitfalls and promise. Pedobiologia. 52:171–180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowan RS, Chase MW, Kress WJ, Savolainen V. 2006. 300,000 Species to identify: Problems, progress, and prospects in DNA barcoding of land plants. Taxon. 55:611–616.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crisci JV. 2006. One-dimensional systematist: Perils in a time of steady progress. Syst Bot. 31:217–221.
   Google Scholar
• Daniel H-M, Himmelreich U, Dedeurwaerdere T. 2006. Integrating different windows on reality: Socio-economic and institutional challenges for culture collections. Int Soc Sci J. 58:369–380.
   Google Scholar
• Dasmahapatra KK, Mallet J. 2006. Taxonomy: DNA barcodes: Recent successes and future prospects. Heredity. 97:254–255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dayrat B. 2005. Towards integrative taxonomy. Biol J Linnean Soc. 85:407–415.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Carvalho MR, Bockmann FA, Amorim DS, Brandão CRF, de Vivo M, de Figueiredo JL, Britski HA, de Pinna MCC, Menezes NA, Marques FPL, Papavero N, Cancello EM, Crisci JV, McEachran JD, Schelly RC, Lundberg JG, Gill AC, Britz R, Wheeler QD, Stiassny MLJ, Parenti LR, Page LM, Wheeler WC, Faivovich J, Vari RP, Grande L, Humphries CJ, DeSalle R, Ebach MC, Nelson GJ. 2007. Taxonomic Impediment or impediment to taxonomy? A commentary on systematics and the cybertaxonomic-automation paradigm. Evol Biol. 34:140–143.
   Google Scholar
• de Carvalho MR, Bockmann FA, Amorim DS, Brandão CRF. 2008. Systematics must embrace comparative biology and evolution, not speed and automation. Evol Biol. 35:150–157.
   Google Scholar
• de Meeûs T, Durand P, Renaud F. 2003. Species concepts: What for?. Trends Parasitol. 19:425–427.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• de Pinna MCC. 1999. Species concepts and phylogenetics. Rev Fish Biol Fish. 9:353–373.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeSalle R. 2006. Species discovery vs. species identification in DNA barcoding efforts: Response to Rubinoff. Conserv Biol. 20:1545–1547.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeSalle R. 2007. Phenetic and DNA taxonomy: A comment on Waugh. BioEssays. 29:1289–1290.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• DeSalle R, Egan MG, Siddall M. 2005. The unholy trinity: Taxonomy, species delimitation and DNA barcoding. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 360:1905–1916.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ebach MC, Holdrege C. More taxonomy, not DNA barcoding. BioScience. 2005a; 55:822–823.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ebach MC, Holdrege C. DNA barcoding is no substitute for taxonomy. Nature. 2005b; 434:697.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ekrem T, Willassen E, Stur E. 2007. A comprehensive DNA sequence library is essential for identification with DNA barcodes. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 43:530–542.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erpenbeck D, Hooper JNA, Wörheide G. 2006. CO1 phylogenies in diploblasts and the “Barcoding of Life”—Are we sequencing a suboptimal partition?. Mol Ecol Notes. 6:550–553.
   Google Scholar
• Esselstyn JA. 2007. Should universal guidelines be applied to taxonomic research?. Biol J Linnean Soc. 90:761–764.
   Google Scholar
• Fautin DG, Walting L. 1999. Review of textbooks of invertebrate zoology. Am Zool. 30:818–824.
   Google Scholar
• Fink WL, Wiley EO. 1979. Cladism defended. Nature. 280:542.
   Google Scholar
• Frézal L, Leblois R. 2008. Four years of DNA barcoding: Current advances and prospects. Infect Genet Evol. 8:727–736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galtier N, Nabholz B, Glémin S, Hurst GDD. 2009. Mitochondrial DNA as a marker of molecular diversity: A reappraisal. Mol Ecol. 18:4541–4550.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardiner BG, Janvier P, Patterson C, Forey PL, Greenwood PH, Miles RS, Jefferies RPS. 1979. The salmon, the lungfish and the cow: A reply. Nature. 277:175–176.
   Google Scholar
• Gaston KJ, O'Neill MA. 2004. Automated species identification: Why not?. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 359:655–667.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gee H. 1999. Search of deep time: Beyond the fossil record to a new history of life. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glover AG, Sundberg P, Dahlgren TG. 2009. In Linnaeus' wake: 300 years of marine discovery. Zool Scr. 38:1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Golding GB, Hanner R, Hebert PDN. 2009Preface. Mol Ecol Resour. 9:4–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hajibabaei M, Smith MA, Janzen DH, Rodriguez JJ, Whitfield JB, Hebert PDN. 2006. A minimalist barcode can identify a specimen whose DNA is degraded. Mol Ecol Notes. 6:959–964.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamilton A, Wheeler QD. 2008. Taxonomy and why history of science matters for science. Isis. 99:331–340.
   Google Scholar
• Hebert PDN, Gregory TR. 2005. The promise of DNA barcoding for taxonomy. Syst Biol. 54:852–859.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hebert PDN, Cywinska A, Ball SL, DeWaard JR. Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B. 2003a; 270:313–321.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hebert PDN, Ratnasingham S, DeWaard JR. Barcoding animal life: Cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 divergences among closely related species. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B. 2003b; 270:S96–S99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollingsworth PM, Forrest LL, Spouge JL, Hajibabaei M, Ratnasingham S, van der Bank M, Chase MW, Cowan RS, Erickson DL, Fazekas AJ, Graham SW, James KE, Kim K-J, Kress WJ, Schneider H, Van Alphen Stahl J, Barrett SCH, Van Den Berg C, Bogarin D, Burgess KS, Cameron KM, Carine M, Chacón J, Clark A, Clarkson JJ, Conrad F, Devey DS, Ford CS, Hedderson TAJ, Hollingsworth ML, Husband BC, Kelly LJ, Kesanakurti PR, Jung SK, Kim Y-D, Lahaye R, Lee H-L, Long DG, Madriñán S, Maurin O, Meusnier I, Newmaster SG, Park C-W, Percy DM, Petersen G, Richardson JE, Salazar GA, Savolainen V, Seberg O, Wilkinson MJ, Yi D-K, Little DP. 2009. A DNA barcode for land plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 106:12794–12797.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hubert N, Hanner R, Holm E, Mandrak NE, Taylor E, Burridge M, Watkinson D, Dumont P, Curry A, Bentzen P, Zhang J, April J, Bernatchez L. 2008. Identifying Canadian freshwater fishes through DNA barcodes. Plos One. 3 6: e2490.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F. 2001. MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics. 17:754–755.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irfanullah HMd. 2006. Algal taxonomy in limnology: An example of the declining trend of taxonomic studies?. Hydrobiologia. 559:1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isaac NJB, Mallet J, Mace GM. 2004. Taxonomic inflation: Its influence on macroecology and conservation. Trends Ecol Evol. 19:464–469.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janvier P. 1979. Cladism defended. Nature. 280:542.
   Google Scholar
• Janzen DH. 2004. Now is the time. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 359:731–732.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knudsen SW, Møller PR, Gravlund P. 2007. Phylogeny of the snailfishes (Teleostei: Liparidae) based on molecular and morphological data. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 44:649–666.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kochzius M, Nölte M, Weber H, Silkenbeumer N, Hjörleifsdottir S, Hreggvidsson GO, Marteinsson V, Kappel K, Planes S, Tinti F, Magoulas A, Garcia Vazquez E, Turan C, Hervet C, Campo Falgueras D, Antoniou A, Landi M, Blohm D. 2008. DNA microarrays for identifying fishes. Mar Biotechnol. 10:207–217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kress WJ, Erickson DL. 2008. DNA barcoding—A windfall for tropical biology?. Biotropica. 40:405–408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krishnankutty N, Chandrasekaran S. 2008. Linnaeus 300: Tips for tinkering morphological taxonomy. Curr Sci. 94:565–567.
   Google Scholar
• La Salle J, Wheeler Q, Jackway P, Winterton S, Hobern D, Lovell D. 2009. Accelerating taxonomic discovery through automated character extraction. Zootaxa. 2217:43–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewin R. 1999. Patterns in evolution: The new molecular view. New York: Scientific American Library.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis PO. 2001. A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data. Syst Biol. 50:913–925.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipscomb D, Platnick N, Wheeler Q. 2003. The intellectual content of taxonomy: A comment on DNA taxonomy. Trends Ecol Evol. 18:65–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lockley AK, Bardsley RG. 2000. DNA-based methods for food authentication. Trends Food Sci Tech. 11:67–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukhtanov VA. 2010. From Haeckel's phylogenetics and Hennig's cladistics to the method of maximum likelihood: Advantages and limitations of modern and traditional approaches to phylogeny reconstruction. Entomol Rev. 90:299–310.
   Google Scholar
• Mallet J, Willmott K. 2003. Taxonomy: Renaissance or Tower of Babel?. Trends Ecol Evol. 18:57–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martens K, Segers H. 2005. Taxonomy and systematics in biodiversity research. Hydrobiologia. 542:27–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayo SJ, Allkin R, Baker W, Blagoderov V, Brake I, Clark B, Govaerts R, Godfray C, Haigh A, Hand R, Harman K, Jackson M, Kilian N, Kirkup DW, Kitching I, Knapp S, Lewis GP, Malcolm P, Von Raab-Straube E, Roberts DM, Scoble M, Simpson DA, Smith C, Smith V, Villalba S, Walley L, Wilkin P. 2008. Alpha e-taxonomy: Responses from the systematics community to the biodiversity crisis. Kew Bull. 63:1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Mayr E. 1981. Biological classification: Toward a synthesis of opposing methodologies. Science. 214:510–516.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayr E. 1982. The growth of biological thoughtDiversity, evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mayr E, Bock WJ. 2002. Classifications and other ordering systems. J Zool Syst Evol Res. 40:169–194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meier R. 2009. DNA sequences in taxonomy: Opportunity and challenges. In: Wheeler Q. editors. The new taxonomy The Systematics Association Special Volume Series 76. New York: CRC Press. p 95–127.
   Google Scholar
• Meier R, Zhang G, Ali F. 2008. The use of mean instead of smallest interspecific distances exaggerates the size of the “barcoding gap” and leads to misidentification. Syst Biol. 57:809–813.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell A. 2008. DNA barcoding demystified. Aust J Entomol. 47:169–173.
   Google Scholar
• Morin J, Bertrand J, Cochard ML, Coppin F, Léauté JP, Lobry J, Mahé J-C, Poulard J-C, Rochet M-J, Schlaich I, Souplet A, Trenkel V, Vaz S, Verin Y. 2009. L'état des communautés exploitées au large des côtes de France. Application d'indicateurs à l'évaluation de l'impact de la pêche. Bilan 2004—Edition 2009. Ifremer: HMMN (in French).
   Google Scholar
• Moritz C, Cicero C. 2004. DNA Barcoding: Promise and pitfalls. PLoS Biol. 2:1529–1531.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson G. 1979. Cladistic analysis and synthesis: Principles and definitions with a historical note on Adanson's familles des plantes (1763–1764). Syst Zool. 28:1–21.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson JS. 1999. Editorial and introduction: The species concept in fish biology. Rev Fish Biol Fish. 9:277–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson RH, Ryberg M, Kristiansson E, Abarenkov K, Larsson K-H, Köljalg U. 2006. Taxonomic reliability of DNA sequences in public sequences databases: A fungal perspective. PLoS One. 1:e59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nylander JAA, Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP, Nieves-Aldrey JL. 2004. Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of combined data. Syst Biol. 53:47–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Packer L, Gibbs J, Sheffield C, Hanner R. DNA barcoding and the mediocrity of morphology. Mol Ecol Resour. 2009a; 9:42–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Packer L, Grixti JC, Roughley RE, Hanner R. The status of taxonomy in Canada and the impact of DNA barcoding. Can J Zool. 2009b; 87:1097–1110.
   Google Scholar
• Panchen AL. 1979. The cladistic debate continued. Nature. 280:541.
   Google Scholar
• Page RDM, Holmes EC. 1998. Molecular evolution: A phylogenetic approach. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
   Google Scholar
• Pegg GG, Sinclair B, Briskey L, Aspden WJ. 2006. MtDNA barcode identification of fish larvae in the southern Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Sci Mar. 70:7–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polaszek A, Wilson EO. 2005. Sense and stability in animal names. Trends Ecol Evol. 20:421–422.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pretti VQ, Calcagnotto D, Toledo-Piza M, de Almeida-Toledo LF. 2009. Phylogeny of the neotropical genus Acestrorhynchus (Ostariophysi: Characiformes) based on nuclear and mitochondrial gene sequences and morphology: A total evidence approach. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 52:312–320.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Quéro J-C, Vayne J-J. 1997. Les poissons de mer des pêches françaises. Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé (in French).
   Google Scholar
• Quéro J-C, Porché P, Vayne J-J. 2003. Guide des poissons de l'Atlantique européen. Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé (in French).
   Google Scholar
• Raczkowski JM, Wenzel JW. 2007. Biodiversity studies and their foundation in taxonomic scholarship. BioScience. 57:974–979.
   Google Scholar
• Rainbow PS. 2009. Marine biological collections in the 21st century. Zool Scr. 38:33–40.
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen RS, Morrissey MT. 2008. DNA-based methods for the identification of commercial fish and seafood species. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 7:280–295.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubinoff D. 2006. Utility of mitochondrial DNA barcodes in species conservation. Conserv Biol. 20:1026–1033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubinoff D, Cameron S, Will K. 2006. Are plant DNA barcodes a search for the Holy Grail?. Trends Ecol Evol. 21:1–2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schander C, Willassen E. 2005. What can biological barcoding do for marine biology. Mar Biol Res. 1:79–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schindel DE, Miller SE. 2005. DNA barcoding a useful tool for taxonomists. Nature. 435:17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scotland RW, Olmstead RG, Bennett JR. 2003. Phylogeny reconstruction: The role of morphology. Syst Biol. 52:539–548.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seberg O, Humphries CJ, Knapp S, Stevenson DW, Petersen G, Scharff N, Andersen NM. 2003. Shortcuts in systematics? A commentary on DNA-based taxonomy. Trends Ecol Evol. 18:63–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shneyer VS. 2007. On the species-specificity of DNA: Fifty years later. Biochemistry. 72:1377–1384.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smith VS. 2005. DNA barcoding: Perspectives from a “Partnerships for enhancing expertise in taxonomy” (PEET) debate. Syst Biol. 54:841–844.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smith PJ, McVeagh SM, Steinke D. DNA barcoding for the identification of smoked fish products. J Fish Biol. 2008a; 72:464–471.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith PJ, Steinke D, Mcveagh SM, Stewart AL, Struthers CD, Roberts CD. Molecular analysis of Southern Ocean skates (Bathyraja) reveals a new species of Antarctic skate. J Fish Biol. 2008b; 73:1170–1182.
   Google Scholar
• Strugnell JM, Lindgren AR. 2007. A barcode of life database for the Cephalopoda? Considerations and concerns. Rev Fish Biol Fish. 17:337–344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Summerbell RC, Levesque CA, Seifert KA, Bovers M, Fell JW, Diaz MR, Boekhout T, De Hoog GS, Stalpers J, Crous PW. 2005. Microcoding: The second step in DNA barcoding. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 360:1897–1903.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sweijd NA, Bowie RCK, Evans BS, Lopata AL. 2000. Molecular genetics and the management and conservation of marine organisms. Hydrobiologia. 420:153–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tassy P. 1986. Construction systématique et soumission au test: Une forme de connaissance objective. In: Tassy P. editors. L'ordre et la diversité du vivant. Paris: Fayard. p 83–89 (in French).
   Google Scholar
• Tassy P. 1991. L'arbre à remonter le temps. Paris: Christian Bourgeois (in French).
   Google Scholar
• Tautz D, Arctander P, Minelli A, Thomas RH, Vogler AP. 2003. A plea for DNA taxonomy. Trends Ecol Evol. 18:70–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teletchea F. 2005. Révision taxonomique des Gadidae et puce à ADN pour l'identification d'espèces: De l'intérêt de la systématique. Phd Thesis (in French). Available online at: http://www.cgmc.univ-lyon1.fr/cgmc_biblio_listetheses.php.
   Google Scholar
• Teletchea F. 2009. Molecular identification methods of fish species: Reassessment and possible applications. Rev Fish Biol Fish. 19:265–293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teletchea F, Maudet C, Hänni C. 2005. Food and forensic molecular identification: Update and challenges. Trends Biotechnol. 23:359–366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teletchea F, Laudet V, Hanni C. 2006. Phylogeny of the Gadidae (sensu Svetovidov 1948) based on their morphology and two mitochondrial genes. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 38:189–199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teletchea F, Bernillon J, Duffraisse M, Laudet V, Hänni C. 2008. Molecular identification of vertebrate species by oligonucleotide microarray in food and forensic samples. J Appl Ecol. 45:967–975.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turan C, Gunduz I, Gurlek M, Yaglioglu D, Erguden D. 2009. Systematics of scorpaeniformes species in the mediterranean sea inferred from mitochondrial 16S rDNA sequence and morphological data. Folia Biol. 57:219–226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner GF. 1999. What is a fish species. Rev Fish Biol Fish. 9:281–297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valentini A, Pompanon F, Taberlet P. 2009. DNA barcoding for ecologists. Trends Ecol Evol. 24:110–117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vogler AP, Monaghan MT. 2007. Recent advances in DNA taxonomy. J Zool Syst Evol Res. 45:1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward RD, Costa FO, Holmes BH, Steinke D. 2008. DNA barcoding shared fish species from the North Atlantic and Australasia: Minimal divergence for most taxa but a likely two species for both Zeus faber (John dory) and Lepidopus caudatus (silver scabbardfish). Aquat Biol. 3:71–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward RD, Hanner R, Hebert PDN. 2009. The campaign to DNA barcode all fishes, FISH-BOL. J Fish Biol. 74:329–356.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren AD, Ogawa JR, Brower AVZ. 2009. Revised classification of the family Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea) based on combined molecular and morphological data. Syst Entomol. 34:467–523.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waugh J. 2007. DNA barcoding in animal species: Progress, potential and pitfalls. BioEssays. 29:188–197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wheeler Q. 2005. Losing the plot: DNA “barcodes” and taxonomy. Cladistics. 21:405–407.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wiens JJ. 2004. The role of morphological data in phylogeny reconstruction. Syst Biol. 53:653–661.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiley EO, Siegel-Causey D, Brooks DR, Funk VA. 1991. The compleat cladist: A primer of phylogenetic procedures. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History Special Publication No. 19.
   Google Scholar
• Will KW, Rubinoff D. 2004. Myth of the molecule: DNA barcodes for species cannot replace morphology for identification and classification. Cladistics. 20:47–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Will KW, Mishler BD, Wheeler QD. 2005. The perils of DNA barcoding and the need for integrative taxonomy. Syst Biol. 54:844–851.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willerslev E, Cooper E. 2005. Ancient DNA. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 272:3–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winston JE. 1999. Describing species: Practical taxonomic procedures for biologists. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wong E, Hanner RH. 2008. DNA barcoding detects market substitution in North American seafood. Food Res Int. 41:828–837.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zemlak TS, Ward RD, Connell AD, Holmes BH, Hebert PDN. 2009. DNA barcoding reveals overlooked marine fishes. Mol Ecol Resour. 9:237–242.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang X-L, Ge X-J, Liu J-Q, Yuan Y-M. 2006. Morphological, karyological and molecular delimitation of two gentians: Gentiana crassicaulis vs. G. tibetica (Gentianaceae). Acta Phytotaxon Sin. 44:627–640.
   Google Scholar