The article “Barcode of Life” by Mark Y. Stoeckle and Paul D. N. Hebert shows the fairly new emerging field of classifying species based on a small bit of genetic code found on an enzyme in the mitochondria called cytochrome C oxidase subunit 1 (Pg. 84). The enzyme was chosen because it had enough base pairs (648) to be able to differentiate species, but not long enough to take too much time to read. This new way of categorizing different species arose from the age-old way of categorizing species because it was more efficient. The article mentions how morphology, the classic way of differentiating species required “a multitude of taxonomic experts needed to identify specimens from a single biodiversity survey.” This timely and costly method
…show more content…
The article mentions how classifying species properly is not just an academic problem, buy rather a problem that could determine weather a species is labeled extinct or having sufficient amount of time to anticipate outbreaks arising from evolving microbes (pg. 72, 79). Zimmer mentions how most researches can agree that species is best defined as “a population whose members breed mostly among themselves, making the group genetically distinct from other species” (Pg. 73). Though this statement holds true to many, it does not meet the criteria for various species. For example, some species such as microbes do not sexually reproduce and therefore would not fit in the context of that statement. The articles mentions how naming species has evolved from distinguishing what a species is based solely on its physical attributes to modern approaches involving the sequencing of …show more content…
The great debate over what makes a species a species could soon come to an end with advances in DNA sequencing as mentioned in the article “Barcode of Life” by Mark Y. Stoeckle and Paul D. N. Hebert. To what extent is the information valid? To start off, the creators of the barcode method were the same people that wrote the article. This immediately was a red flag as the potential for bias was strong in the article. Though the authors do not explicitly mention how their new method will become the new gold standard for distinguishing species, they subtly remark on the great potential their process will bring. The authors of “Barcode of Life” do not mention alternatives to sampling cythochrome C oxidase subunit 1. They briefly explained why they use CO1, but not to a satisfactory
The article mentions how classifying species properly is not just an academic problem, buy rather a problem that could determine weather a species is labeled extinct or having sufficient amount of time to anticipate outbreaks arising from evolving microbes (pg. 72, 79). Zimmer mentions how most researches can agree that species is best defined as “a population whose members breed mostly among themselves, making the group genetically distinct from other species” (Pg. 73). Though this statement holds true to many, it does not meet the criteria for various species. For example, some species such as microbes do not sexually reproduce and therefore would not fit in the context of that statement. The articles mentions how naming species has evolved from distinguishing what a species is based solely on its physical attributes to modern approaches involving the sequencing of …show more content…
The great debate over what makes a species a species could soon come to an end with advances in DNA sequencing as mentioned in the article “Barcode of Life” by Mark Y. Stoeckle and Paul D. N. Hebert. To what extent is the information valid? To start off, the creators of the barcode method were the same people that wrote the article. This immediately was a red flag as the potential for bias was strong in the article. Though the authors do not explicitly mention how their new method will become the new gold standard for distinguishing species, they subtly remark on the great potential their process will bring. The authors of “Barcode of Life” do not mention alternatives to sampling cythochrome C oxidase subunit 1. They briefly explained why they use CO1, but not to a satisfactory