English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Despite the widespread and common use of DNA-sequence data to estimate phylogenies, support or contest classifications, and identify species using barcodes, they are not commonly used as the primary or sole source of data for describing species. This is possibly due to actual or perceived pressure from peers to include morphology as the primary source of data for species descriptions. We find no compelling evidence to exclude DNA-only descriptions, or to insist that morphologyalwaysbeincludedinaspeciesdescription.Itisnotthedatatypepersethatisimportant,butthesciencebehind the taxonomicconclusions. Using alternative kinds of datafor descriptions should not cause problems for taxonomy if links are kept with type specimens.

Need morphology always be required for new species descriptions?