Vol. 40 No. 2 (2020)
Articles

DNA Barcode: Conceptual Problems of a Scientific Analogy

PDF (Español (España))
  • Julio Torres Meléndez
Julio Torres Meléndez
Departamento de Filosofía, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción, Chile
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36446/af.2020.352

Published 2020-11-01

Keywords

  • DNA Barcode,
  • Essentialism,
  • Biological Species Concept,
  • Ecological Speciation,
  • Species Discovery
  • Código de barras de ADN,
  • Esencialismo;,
  • Concepto biológico de especie;,
  • Especiación ecológica,
  • Descubrimiento de especies
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Abstract

The barcode image has been imposed to refer to a mitochondrial DNA sequence that is used to measure the genetic distance between animal populations. According to the essentialist interpretation of this analogy, this measurement method would serve not only for the rapid identification of specimens or fragmentary samples of previously classified species, but also, by itself, for the discovery of new species. Integrative taxonomists have rejected this latter use of the DNA barcode method, since biological complexity precludes its precise application in recent speciation events. I will argue, however, that the method fails for conceptual and not merely empirical reasons. Even if it wouldn’t have any empirical impediment, the DNA barcode could not be a method of species discovery.

PDF (Español (España))

References

  1. Azcona, M. (2019). Abducción e inferencia a la mejor explicación: Criterios para su delimitación metodológica. Epistemología e Historia de la Ciencia, 4(1), 33-55.
  2. Bingpeng, X., Heshan, L., Zhilan, Z., Chunguang, W., Yanguo, W., & Jianjun, W. (2018). DNA barcoding for identification of fish species in the Taiwan Strait. PloS one, 13(6), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198109
  3. Blaxter, M. (2004). The promise of a DNA taxonomy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 359(1444), 669-679. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2003.1447
  4. Cognato, A. I., Sari, G., Smith, S. M., Beaver, R. A., Li, Y., Hulcr, J., Jordal, B. H., Kajimura, H., Lin, C. S., Pham, T. H., Singh, S., & Sittichaya, W. (2020). The essential role of taxonomic expertise in the creation of DNA databases for the identification and delimitation of southeast asian Ambrosia beetle species (Curculionidae: Scolytinae: Xyleborini). Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 8(27), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2020.00027
  5. Chase, M. W., & Fay, M. F. (2009). Barcoding of plants and fungi. Science, 325(5941), 682-683. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1176906
  6. Devitt, M. (2008). Resurrecting biological essentialism. Philosophy of Science, 75(3), 344-382. https://doi.org/10.1086/593566
  7. Devitt, M. (2018a). Individual essentialism in biology. ​Biology & Philosophy, 33(39). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-018-9651-1
  8. Devitt, M. (2018b). Historical biological essentialism. ​Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 71, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2018.05.004
  9. DeSalle, R. (2006). Species discovery versus species identification in DNA barcoding efforts: Response to Rubinoff. Conservation Biology, 20(5), 1545-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00543.x
  10. DeSalle, R., & Goldstein, P. Z. (2019). Review and interpretation of trends in DNA barcoding. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 7(302), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00302
  11. Harman, G. H. (1965). The inference to the best explanation. The Philosophical Review, 74(1), 88-95.
  12. Hanner, R., Floyd, R., Bernard, A., Collette, B. B., & Shivji, M. (2011). DNA barcoding of billfishes. Mitochondrial DNA, 22(sup1), 27-36. https://doi.org/10.3109/19401736.2011.596833
  13. Hebert, P. D. N., Cywinska, A., Ball, S. L., & deWaard, J. R. (2003). Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 270(1512), 313-321. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2218
  14. Hebert, P. D. N., Stoeckle, M., Zemlak, T., & Francis, C. (2004). Identification of birds through DNA Barcodes. PLoS Biol, 2(10), e312, 1657-1663. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020312
  15. Hebert, P. D. N., Hollingsworth, P. M, & Hajibabaei, M. (2016). From writing to reading the encyclopedia of life. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 371, 20150321, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0321
  16. Holmes, B. (2004, 26 de junio). Barcode me. NewScientist, 32-35. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18224535-400-barcode-me/
  17. Kekkonen, M., & Hebert, P. D. (2014). DNA barcode-based delineation of putative species: Efficient start for taxonomic workflows. Molecular Ecology Resources, 14(4), 706-715. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12233
  18. Lee, M. S. Y. (2003). Species concepts and species reality: Salvaging a Linnaean rank. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 16(2), 179-188. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00520.x
  19. Lee, M. S. Y. (2004). The molecularisation of taxonomy. Invertebrate Systematics, 18(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1071/IS03021
  20. Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Harvard University Press.
  21. Nosil, P. (2012). Ecological Speciation, Oxford University Press.
  22. Okasha, S. (2000). Van Fraassen’s critique of inference to the best explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 31(4), 691-710.
  23. Orr, M. C., Ascher, J. S., Bai, M., Chesters, D., & Zhu, C. D. (2020). Three questions: How can taxonomists survive and thrive worldwide? Megataxa, 1(1), 19-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/megataxa.1.1.4
  24. Paz, A., González, M., & Andrew, J. (2011). Códigos de barras de la vida: Introducción y perspectivas. Acta biológica colombiana, 16(3), 161-176.
  25. Ratnasingham, S., & Hebert, P. D. N. (2013). A DNA-based registry for all animal species: the barcode index number (BIN) system, PLoS ONE, 8(7), e66213. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066213
  26. Rubinoff, D., Cameron, S., & Will, K. (2006). Are plant DNA barcodes a search for the Holy Grail? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 21(1), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.10.019
  27. Stelkens, R. B., & Seehausen, O. (2009). Phenotypic divergence but not genetic distance predicts assortative mating among species of a cichlid fish radiation. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 22(8), 1679-1694. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01777.x
  28. Tautz, D., Arctander, P., Minelli, A., Thomas, R. H., & Vogler, A. P. (2003). A plea for DNA taxonomy. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18(2), 70-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(02)00041-1
  29. Valdecasas, A. G., Williams D., Wheeler, Q. D. (2008). ‘Integrative taxonomy’ then and now: A response to Dayrat (2005). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 93(1), 211-216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2007.00919.x
  30. Will, K. W., Mishler, B. D., & Wheeler, Q. D. (2005). The perils of DNA barcoding and the need for integrative taxonomy. Systematic Biology, 54(5), 844-851. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150500354878
  31. Yeates, D. K., Seago, A., Nelson, L., Cameron, S. L., Joseph, L. E. O., & Trueman, J. W. (2011). Integrative taxonomy, or iterative taxonomy? Systematic Entomology, 36(2), 209-217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3113.2010.00558.x