Hi all in response to Yde (and Rod too on a side discussion) - I think we're straying into discussion of CBOL itself & as I know they are still in the policy drafting stage, maybe some of these comments would be best directed straight to the people concerned

http://www.barcodinglife.org/static/cbol/cbol.html http://barcoding.si.edu/index_detail.htm

Not sure which is the 'official' home page out of these two

Sally

...

...

[Yde] A detail I would like to discuss within this context in the near future is the best possible way to link species names to genetic resources (e.g. DNA barcodes).

[Sally] This is something that CBOL have been discussing. I think that their current draft is that barcode sequences should be linked to the best available name (ie a well defined concept if there's a checklist, otherwise a name from a nomenclator, & only if there's nothing available from a nomenclator should they go for just a name, or even an unpublished candidate name like sp A, sp. B ). When CBOL were discussing the link to names earlier this year (in May) things weren't so well advanced on the GUID front so their approach may need to be reviewed if we do get a good system of GUIDs in place for names or concepts. However I know that they are including GBIF in the discussions so hopefully whatever they come up with will be compatible with whatever we come up with ...

Thanks Sally and Rod (for technical comments). Yes I agree that linking to the best available (checklist/index) concept or (nomenclator) name seems to be the proper way, however, here exactly my fear begins. I simply don't believe that because of the inherent instability of taxon concepts and because of the taxonomical under-education of most molecular workers this will provide a reliable model. I am afraid that when no very strict regulations on identification, voucher typification and naming of used lab-specimen will be established, we will not only end up with a similar bad situation as currently in GeneBank (30% of the sequenced taxa wrongly identified and no vouchers for control), but also an unworkable taxonomic framework because of disintegrating taxon concepts. Especially because the expected expansion of DNA barcodes will be much larger compared to current sequence data, which could enforce fuzzy working. Of course ideally DNA barcoding should proceed from type specimen (not found realistic in our museum) when possible and professional taxonomists should be closely involved. I know CBOL is working on guidelines for vouchering, and so on, but still...

Sorry about my sceptics and have a nice weekend!

Yde

*** Sally Hinchcliffe *** Computer section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew *** tel: +44 (0)20 8332 5708 *** S.Hinchcliffe@rbgkew.org.uk