It will not take over the classical taxonomy but could add more precision to the way of classifying organisms

I’m also think it’s not for taxonomy..the task is just beyond the genetic information..

They are likely to merge. There are several reasons why barcoding cannot be the basis for classification, each of them sufficient for proving that point. To name a couple: barcoding depends on the arbitrary levels of genetic diversity, but there are a plenty of cases showing how these arbitrary levels lead to mistakes, for higher organisms it is difficult to calculate the ground barcode, all population processes like bottlenecks, migrations etc are likely to change genetic composition at a place pretty fast. On the other hand, barcoding provides the only possibility to identify juveniles, to link the keys made for say larvae and to the ones made for imago...

While it is normally not a good idea to describe new species without some sequences, it is absolutely impossible to imagine describing biodiversity of higher organisms using barcodes only.

DNA barcoding is chiefly a tool for identification of previously delineated species, not a means for discovery of new species. As such, it cannot replace the traditional taxonomy. Besides, it has its own limitations and 'pitfalls' that makes barcoding merely an 'one more method' for doing research in the field of biological diversity. I would not overestimate both its potential and utility.

Hello Rana; The systematic literature is full of papers that describe molecular analyses that reveal new species which were impossible to recognize using typical morphological methods. Among hymenopterans there appear to be huge numbers of host-specific parasites that had previously been thought to be a smaller number of generalist parasites. Look up Daniel Janzen. He has published several papers that fit this description.

These molecular methods have broadened the power of taxonomic analysis. That's good. Best regards, Jim Des Lauriers

In my view, yes, there are great efforts being made to confront this virus, and, God willing, it will succeed soon.

There are many reasons why morphological taxonomy can't be replaced by DNA barcoding. Here are a few that I can think of off the top of my head.

(1) Introgression, where whole genes can pass unchanged between species, will lead to misleading identifications.

(2) Nuclear mitochondrial pseudogenes (NUMTs) result in imperfect identifications.

(3) You need a full referenced database in the first place to do DNA barcoding, which requires traditional taxonomy.

(4) A single gene (i.e. COI) may not be representative of the whole genome, and might be unchanged in recently diverged species. While the potential incongruency of COI (particularly with regard to genetic saturation) with other loci and the species phylogeny and the idea that “one gene fits all” might lead to unrepresentative biodiversity patterns

(5) The practicality of amplifying and sequencing universal stretches of DNA is not universal.

(6) The identification of species, via DNA barcoding, relies on the idea that their sequences will cluster so that intraspecific divergences will always be less than interspecific divergences (the barcode gap), and that this gap is consistent and diagnosable across all animal species (this is not always true).

(7) Incomplete lineage sorting leads to barcode gap overlap, which lumps overwise distinct morphological species. Diagnosable morphological differences that develop due to divergent selection are likely to manifest much sooner than a neutral gene, therefore species can be detected much sooner than variation at neutral markers.

(8) Even if a barcode gap exists, it is unlikely to be consistent among lineages. Rates of evolution differ among lineages as well as genes.

I feel that DNA barcoding is an amazing tool for the rapid identification of species, but its use in the absence of traditional taxonomy will be unreliable. DNA barcoding and traditional morphological taxonomy are two tools that taxonomists should use in an integrative, iterative way. Abandoning one for the other would be a step backwards

I agree with the comments ofJeam Pl

Ierre

Interesting on following

DNA Barcoding & Conventional Taxonomy -

https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/54/5/852/1633113( as REF ) -1165 Citations .

Accuracy ,and reliability of the methods will determine adoption by scientists.

In few word, taxonomy gives names to species, define their limits and the diagnostic characters to recognize them. DNA barcoding use genetic data to assign a name (previously given by taxonomists) to an unidentified organism or (sometimes) spot previously unrecognised species (e.g. cryptic species).

No it won't. It is silly for a number of reasons.

DNA barcoding is a complementary tool to taxonomy, not a replacement by any means.

Thanks a lot Dear Dr. Dmitry Sherbakov , I really appreciate your contribution. Regards

Thanks a lot Dear Dr. Jaydip Datta , I really appreciate your contribution. Regards

Thanks a lot Dear Dr. Qusay Kh. Al-Dulamey , I really appreciate your contribution. Regards

Thanks a lot Dear Dr. Isam Alkhalifawi , I really appreciate your contribution. Regards

Thanks a lot Dear Dr. Patrice Showers Corneli , I really appreciate your contribution. Regards

Thanks a lot Dear Dr. Kunle Adebowale , I really appreciate your contribution. Regards

Thanks a lot Dear Dr. Adil Ahiri , I really appreciate your contribution. Regards

Thanks a lot Dear Dr. Maxim Vinarski , I really appreciate your contribution. Regards

Thanks a lot Dear Dr. James Des Lauriers , I really appreciate your contribution. Regards

Thanks a lot Dear Dr. Mahmoud Alghizzawi , I really appreciate your contribution. Regards

Thanks a lot Dear Dr. Jasim Hassen

Thanks a lot Dear Dr. Bruce Robin Nyamweha , I really appreciate your contribution. Regards

Thanks a lot Dear Dr. Aparna Sathya Murthy , I really appreciate your contribution. Regards

Thanks a lot Dear Dr. اسرار عبدالزهرة

Thanks a lot Dear Dr. Aparna Sathya Murthy , I really appreciate your contribution. Regards

Thanks a lot Dear Dr. Terry Purvis

Thanks a lot Dear Dr. Bamidele Johnson Alegbeleye , I really appreciate your contribution. Regards

Thanks a lot Dear Dr. Qusay Kh. Al-Dulamey , I really appreciate your contribution. Regards

Thanks a lot Dear Dr. Ali Al-obaidi , I really appreciate your contribution. Regards

Thanks a lot Dear Dr. Jaydip Datta , I really appreciate your contribution. Regards

Thanks a lot Dear Dr. Pablo Muñoz-Rodríguez , I really appreciate your contribution. Regards

Thanks a lot Dear Dr. Janet Lane

The DNA barcoders cannot take any credit for that. ... An overemphasis on the barcoding approach could easily distract taxonomy from its scientific goals and ... Note that we are not defending “traditional taxonomy” here, but instead we argue that the real ... Why is this any more or less of a problem for DNA barcoding

Thanks a lot Dear Dr. Isam Alkhalifawi , I really appreciate your contribution. Regards

DNA barcoding is an helping tool..

Thanks a lot Dear Dr. Shahnawaz Gul , I really appreciate your contribution. Regards

Dear Rana Kadhim Mohammed ,

There is a very similar question here on ResGate that might be worth reading into: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_future_for_traditional_taxonomy2

DNA barcoding is nothing without a reference database (which is built and maintained by taxonomists) to compare the DNA barcode(s) sequenced from a specimen. DNA barcodes (and other genetic information) can help taxonomists in formulating hypotheses to circumscribe groups of organisms that we would consider species. But considering the many shortcomings and cautionary tales of DNA barcoding (see e.g. https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/55/5/715/1662987), doing taxonomy solely based on DNA barcodes is negligent.

I use DNA barcoding a lot in my research, but in the end I mostly see it as a link to connect Linnean species names with those short, easily amplifiable genetic sequences that we call DNA barcodes. These DNA barcodes will then serve non-experts to rapidly and reliably identify organisms that they are not familiar with. For me, DNA barcoding is therefore mainly a service to provide an identification tool – much like a classical identification key, but easier to use, as one doesn't have to be familiar with morhological structures and terminology.

Richard Mally

I appreciate your contribution dear

Thanks a lot

DNA barcoding involves the use of single gene to identify a given species by comparison with other species, I.e to make distinction from other species, so it is not a prime technique for identification and will not take over classical taxonomy. Thank you.

Gamal El Ghazali

I appreciate your contribution dear

Thanks a lot

No doubt, DNA barcoding is a modern molecular tool to identify animals and plants more accurately, but conventional Taxonomy needs to be studied first and simultaneously DNA barcoding will aid in confirming the conventional study.

Dear Madam Rana Kadhim Mohammed, nice question.

Certainly, DNA barcoding is wide acceptable tool to identify the species and supports morphological taxonomists in various angles:

First, based on keys made by morphological characteristics all stages of life of organisms cannot be identified so keys have limited role for species identification. Second, morphological identification tools often become unable to differentiate cryptic species. Third, phenotypic plasticity often leads to incorrect identification. Fourth, misdiagnosis is common during identification of species on the basis of taxonomic keys because it needs high level of expertise that cannot be common.

DNA bar coding cannot take over conventional taxonomy. The DNA bar codes are used to compare the conventional taxonomy of identifying a species. DNA bar coding is not a solution for species identification but is an useful tool for species confirmation.

Utsav Poudel

I appreciate your contribution dear

Thanks a lot

M. A. Azadi .

I appreciate your contribution dear

Thanks a lot

Samiullah Soomro

I appreciate your contribution dear

Thanks a lot

Munira Nasiruddin

I appreciate your contribution dear

Thanks a lot

The DNA bar coding is certainly more precise than the morphology analysis. It enables to see the common main genes coding for secondary metabolites that play a big role in plant defense against diseases and metabolites that may have some importance for human medicine. With time the bar coding may replace the classical taxonomy

Jean-Pierre Jost

I appreciate your contribution dear

Thanks a lot

Rana Kadhim Mohammed

yes

Nirmala S.V.S.G

I appreciate your contribution dear

Thanks a lot

Please have a look at the following link:

Article DNA BARCODING AND TRADITIONAL TAXONOMY: AN INTEGRATIVE APPROACH

DNA barcoding is not a threat to traditional taxonomy. DNA barcoding and traditional taxonomy are complementary to each other.

Harasit Kumar Paul

I appreciate your contribution dear

Thanks a lot

Definitely 'No '😊😊😊😎.

Bar coding depends on Morpho taxonomy.

Beyond species identification, the description and naming of new species are major taxonomic endeavors that can benefit from DNA barcoding, but will not be limited to this method. The ultimate material reference for species names are type specimens collected during "pre-molecular biology era" and deposited in museums, most of which without any sequence data available on public banks. Even if we had DNA barcode sequences available for all type specimens, species delimitation and description based solely on information from a single or few mitochondrial markers still would always provide a less complete picture of species limits compared to integrative approaches (combining info from morphology, molecules and other systems). Therefore, I think the major trend in modern taxonomy is integrative taxonomy.

Amitava Majumder

I appreciate your contribution dear

Thanks a lot

Pablo Rodrigues Gonçalves

I appreciate your contribution dear

Thanks a lot

I think that the best way is integrative taxonomy, molecular and classical methods.

Łukasz Kaczmarek

I appreciate your contribution dear

Thanks a lot

In my view, DNA Barcoding is just another tool which may help taxonomists to arrive at a conclusion to name a species under question. A critical knowledge of this approach may help even conventional taxonomists to scale up the slow pace of species identification in their domain. This tool is also crucial for phylogeny reconstruction of the taxa under study, therefore it is recommended to use both conventional and molecular taxonomic method for defining a species.

Thank you!

The molecular Taxonomy is a supportive tool to the conventional taxonomy. But, with the standardized DNA barcoding techniques we can identify the species in less time and at any stage of the organism/insect

Rakshit Ojha

I appreciate your contribution dear

Thanks a lot

Sabhavat Srinivasnaik

I appreciate your contribution dear

Thanks a lot

Rana Kadhim Mohammed

...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › PMC › articles › PMC6918277

Prof. Nirmala S.V.S.G Thanks to you; you are very kind and nice

Best Regards

There are many reasons why morphological taxonomy can't be replaced by DNA barcoding. Diagnosable morphological differences that develop due to divergent selection are likely to manifest much sooner than a neutral gene, therefore species can be detected much sooner than variation at neutral markers. Rana Kadhim Mohammed

Thanks to you dear and highly respected Dr. Debanjan Chatterjee Ph.D. for your valuable information

Best regards

Thanks to you dear and highly respected Dr. Janet Lane

Best regards

May be.

Prof. Mohamad Abdulhai Thanks to you; you are very kind and nice

Best Regards