A molecular-based identification resource for the arthropods of Finland

To associate specimens identified by molecular characters to other biological knowledge, we need reference sequences annotated by Linnaean taxonomy. In this study, we (1) report the creation of a comprehensive reference library of DNA barcodes for the arthropods of an entire country (Finland), (2) publish this library, and (3) deliver a new identification tool for insects and spiders, as based on this resource. The reference library contains mtDNA COI barcodes for 11,275 (43%) of 26,437 arthropod species known from Finland, including 10,811 (45%) of 23,956 insect species. To quantify the improvement in identification accuracy enabled by the current reference library, we ran 1000 Finnish insect and spider species through the Barcode of Life Data system (BOLD) identification engine. Of these, 91% were correctly assigned to a unique species when compared to the new reference library alone, 85% were correctly identified when compared to BOLD with the new material included, and 75% with the new material excluded. To capitalize on this resource, we used the new reference material to train a probabilistic taxonomic assignment tool, FinPROTAX, scoring high success. For the full-length barcode region, the accuracy of taxonomic assignments at the level of classes, orders, families, subfamilies, tribes, genera, and species reached 99.9%, 99.9%, 99.8%, 99.7%, 99.4%, 96.8%, and 88.5%, respectively. The FinBOL arthropod reference library and FinPROTAX are available through the Finnish Biodiversity Information Facility (www.laji.fi) at https://laji.fi/en/theme/protax. Overall, the FinBOL investment represents a massive capacity-transfer from the taxonomic community of Finland to all sectors of society.</p

The Trichoptera barcode initiative: a strategy for generating a species-level Tree of Life

DNA barcoding was intended as a means to provide species-level identifications through associating DNA sequences from unknown specimens to those from curated reference specimens. Although barcodes were not designed for phylogenetics, they can be beneficial to the completion of the Tree of Life. The barcode database for Trichoptera is relatively comprehensive, with data from every family, approximately two-thirds of the genera, and one-third of the described species. Most Trichoptera, as with most of life’s species, have never been subjected to any formal phylogenetic analysis. Here, we present a phylogeny with over 16 000 unique haplotypes as a working hypothesis that can be updated as our estimates improve. We suggest a strategy of implementing constrained tree searches, which allow larger datasets to dictate the backbone phylogeny, while the barcode data fill out the tips of the tree. We also discuss how this phylogeny could be used to focus taxonomic attention on ambiguous species boundaries and hidden biodiversity. We suggest that systematists continue to differentiate between ‘Barcode Index Numbers’ (BINs) and ‘species’ that have been formally described. Each has utility, but they are not synonyms. We highlight examples of integrative taxonomy, using both barcodes and morphology for species description. This article is part of the themed issue ‘From DNA barcodes to biomes’

The Trichoptera barcode initiative: a strategy for generating a species-level Tree of Life.

DNA barcoding was intended as a means to provide species-level identifications through associating DNA sequences from unknown specimens to those from curated reference specimens. Although barcodes were not designed for phylogenetics, they can be beneficial to the completion of the Tree of Life. The barcode database for Trichoptera is relatively comprehensive, with data from every family, approximately two-thirds of the genera, and one-third of the described species. Most Trichoptera, as with most of life's species, have never been subjected to any formal phylogenetic analysis. Here, we present a phylogeny with over 16 000 unique haplotypes as a working hypothesis that can be updated as our estimates improve. We suggest a strategy of implementing constrained tree searches, which allow larger datasets to dictate the backbone phylogeny, while the barcode data fill out the tips of the tree. We also discuss how this phylogeny could be used to focus taxonomic attention on ambiguous species boundaries and hidden biodiversity. We suggest that systematists continue to differentiate between 'Barcode Index Numbers' (BINs) and 'species' that have been formally described. Each has utility, but they are not synonyms. We highlight examples of integrative taxonomy, using both barcodes and morphology for species description.This article is part of the themed issue 'From DNA barcodes to biomes'