Sharkey Michael J, Tucker Erika M, Baker Austin, Smith M Alex, Ratnasingham Sujeevan, Manjunath Ramya, Hebert Paul, Hallwachs Winnie, Janzen Daniel
The Hymenoptera Institute, 516 Saguache Dr., Florissant, CO, 80816, USA.
Biodiversity Outreach Network; South Lyon, Michigan, USA.
Zookeys. 2022 Jul 5;1110:135-149. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.1110.85491. eCollection 2022.
This is a response to a preprint version of "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", https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.28.441626v2. Meier et al. strongly criticized Sharkey et al.'s publication in which 403 new species were deliberately minimally described, based primarily on COI barcode sequence data. Here we respond to these criticisms. The following points are made: 1) Sharkey et al. did not equate BINs with species, as demonstrated in several examples in which multiple species were found to be in single BINs. 2) We reiterate that BINs were used as a preliminary sorting tool, just as preliminary morphological identification commonly sorts specimens based on color and size into unit trays; despite BINs and species concepts matching well over 90% of species, this matching does not equate to equality. 3) Consensus barcodes were used only to provide a diagnosis to conform to the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature just as consensus morphological diagnoses are. The barcode of a holotype is definitive and simply part of its cellular morphology. 4) Minimalist revisions will facilitate and accelerate future taxonomic research, not hinder it. 5) We refute the claim that the BOLD sequences of are pseudogenes and demonstrate that they simply represent a frameshift mutation. 6) We reassert our observation that morphological evidence alone is insufficient to recognize species within species-rich higher taxa and that its usefulness lies in character states that are congruent with molecular data. 7) We show that in the cases in which COI barcodes code for the same amino acids in different putative species, data from morphology, host specificity, and other ecological traits reaffirm their utility as indicators of genetically distinct lineages.
这是对预印本版本《对夏基等人（2021年）极简修订数据的重新分析表明，生物识别号码（BINs）不应被命名，但生物多样性在线数据系统（BOLD Systems）需要对开放科学做出更强有力的承诺》（https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.28.441626v2）的回应。迈尔等人强烈批评了夏基等人的出版物，该出版物主要基于细胞色素氧化酶亚基I（COI）条形码序列数据，对403个新物种进行了刻意的极简描述。在此，我们对这些批评做出回应。提出以下几点：1）夏基等人并未将生物识别号码等同于物种，如多个例子所示，其中发现单个生物识别号码包含多个物种。2）我们重申，生物识别号码被用作初步分类工具，就像初步形态学鉴定通常根据颜色和大小将标本分类到单元托盘中一样；尽管生物识别号码与物种概念在超过90%的物种中匹配良好，但这种匹配并不等同于等同。3）共识条形码仅用于提供诊断，以符合《国际动物命名法规》的规则，就像共识形态学诊断一样。模式标本的条形码是决定性的，仅仅是其细胞形态的一部分。4）极简修订将促进和加速未来的分类学研究，而不是阻碍它。5）我们反驳关于[具体内容缺失]的生物多样性在线数据系统（BOLD）序列是假基因的说法，并证明它们仅仅代表一个移码突变。6）我们重申我们的观察结果，即仅靠形态学证据不足以在物种丰富的高级分类单元中识别物种，其有用性在于与分子数据一致的特征状态。7）我们表明，在不同假定物种中COI条形码编码相同氨基酸的情况下，来自形态学、宿主特异性和其他生态特征的数据再次证明它们作为遗传上不同谱系指标的效用。
