Dear all,
Noticed this from Fred and others in the latest issue of Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10557903
Pleijel, F.; Jondelius, U.; Norlinder, E.; Nygren, A.; Oxelman, B.; Schander, C.; Sundberg, P. ; Thollesson, M. 2008: Phylogenies without roots? A plea for the use of vouchers in molecular phylogenetic studies. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 48(1): 369-371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2008.03.024
Quote for flavour: "Today there is a large number of sequences deposited at GenBank that are incorrectly labeled and, unless remedied, these will continuously be associated with the wrong taxa. Vouchers constitute an essential link between data and taxa, and provide a means to verify the taxonomic identity of the specimens sequenced. However, only a minority of journals require that vouchers connected to the genetic information be deposited in museums or other institutions. Furthermore, at GenBank there is currently no dedicated field for specification of vouchers."
I know of instances where new molecular studies has found the misidentification in the old work, but are there cases where an actual taxonomist has re-examined the voucher and found the misidentification simply by eyeballing it?
Precise (gps) geographic information is also very useful to include with molecular data, and, lacking a voucher, will be helpful if a species is not one of those that roam the seas via shipping, or doesn't appear to have a wide natural range.
Misidentification goes on all the time in ecological papers with few consequences, and in taxonomic papers too (one hopes with a lesser frequency, but perfection is a distant goal for all of us). At least the GenBank ones will eventually be detected, vouchered or not, maybe in a highly embarrassing fashion for the original authors. You have been warned!
Here is an interesting complex case in freshwater limpets involving a misidentified GenBank sequence:
Walther, A. C.; Lee, T.; Burch, J. B. ; Foighil, D. O. 2006: Acroloxus lacustris is not an ancylid: A case of misidentification involving the cryptic invader Ferrissia fragilis (Mollusca: Pulmonata: Hygrophila). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 39(1): 271-275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2005.08.014
Even more interesting is that the misidentified entry (AY577462) as A lacustris is still seemingly uncorrected in GenBank. Why is this? Have I got this right? It seems very strange.
See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/viewer.fcgi?46451261:NCBI:6982153
Geoff
--
Geoff Read <g.read from niwa.co.nz>
http://www.annelida.net/http://www.niwascience.co.nz/ncabb/