Quick note to highlight the following publication: This paper outlines the methods used by the BOLD project to cluster sequences into "BINS", and touches on the issue of dark taxa (taxa that are in GenBank but which lack formal scientific names). Might be time to revisit the dark taxa idea, especially now that I've got a better handle on the taxonomic literature (see BioNames) where the names of at least some dark taxa may lurk.

The following is a first for iPhylo, a guest post by Bob Mesibov. Rod Page introduced 'dark taxa' here on iPhylo in April 2011. He wrote:Rod suggested that 'quite a lot' of biology can be done without taxonomic names.

Quick note that Morgan Jackson (@BioInFocus) has written nice blog post Citations, Social Media & Science inspired by the fact that the following paper:Kwong, S., Srivathsan, A., & Meier, R. (2012). An update on DNA barcoding: low species coverage and numerous unidentified sequences. Cladistics, no–no. doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.2012.00408.xcites my "Dark taxa" in the body of the text but not in the list of literature cited.

Dark taxa have become even darker. NCBI has pulled the plug on large numbers of DNA barcode sequences that lack scientific names. For example, taxon Cyclopoida sp. BOLD:AAG9771 (tax_id 818059) now has a sparse page that has no associated sequences. From an earlier download of EMBL I know that this taxon is associated with at least 5 sequences, such as GU679674. But if you go to that sequence you get this:So the the sequence is hidden.

I've updated the BLAST a sequence and get a tree tool described in a previous post to output additional details, such as a list of the sequences used to build the tree and some basic metadata (such as the taxon name, name of any associated host, publication, and geographic coordinates). If the sequences are geotagged, then you will also see a little map showing the localities.

I would like to know what you think of a grant proposal I plan to submit to the UK Natural Environment Research Council at the end of the month.

In an earlier post (Are names really the key to the big new biology?, I questioned Patterson et al.'s assertion in a recent TREE article (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2010.09.004) that names are key to the new biology.In this post I'm going to revisit this idea by doing a quick analysis of how many species in GenBank have "proper" scientific names, and whether the number of named species has changed over time.