Submitted by rich burkmar on Thu, 22/08/2013 - 00:00
I recently took part in a really interesting email discussion with some other NFBR members (National Forum for Biological Recorders) prompted by the recent publication of a paper on metabarcoding. I think it's fair to say that many biological recorders are very cautious about the use of DNA barcoding as a tool for monitoring biodiversity. There is a perception that the development of DNA barcoding may threaten the traditional morphological identification skills of the biological recorder. I have a more optimistic outlook and the rest of this blog is derived from an email I contributed to the email discussion.
I recently took part in a really interesting email discussion with some other NFBR members (National Forum for Biological Recorders) prompted by the recent publication of a paper on metabarcoding. I think it's fair to say that many biological recorders are very cautious about the use of DNA barcoding as a tool for monitoring biodiversity. There is a perception that the development of DNA barcoding may threaten the traditional morphological identification skills of the biological recorder. I have a more optimistic outlook and the rest of this blog is derived from an email I contributed to the email discussion.
