Sir

M. C. Ebach and C. Holdrege, in Correspondence (“DNA barcoding is no substitute for taxonomy” Nature 434, 697; 2005), express some key misunderstandings regarding what a comprehensive DNA barcoding programme would — and especially would not — do. DNA barcoding projects are already achieving positive results, albeit on a relatively small scale. If implemented globally, DNA barcoding would benefit, not compromise, taxonomic science.

It is important to note that it does not seek to replace the linnaean system of classification, and thus differs fundamentally from proposals to create a new taxonomic system based solely on DNA. With only 15% of the estimated 10 million species described, large-scale DNA barcoding could be used to highlight probable new species within previously unstudied taxa. However, these species-in-waiting would not be named solely with a DNA barcode: they would be given linnaean names based on the study of curated voucher specimens, high-resolution digital images, collection locality data and other information.

Perhaps the most unfortunate misunderstanding is that DNA barcoding competes with taxonomy for funding. Existing DNA barcoding networks have been funded by agencies that do not have a tradition of supporting taxonomic work. A global DNA barcoding initiative would be a ‘big science’ programme, and as such would compete for priority with projects of similar scale from physics, medicine and genomics — not taxonomy. Moreover, the bulk of such funds would ultimately be directed toward the collection and curation of specimens, not DNA sequencing.

Rather than draining support from taxonomy, the DNA barcoding initiative has the potential to inject significant new funding into museums, herbaria and individual taxonomy labs.