Spider: SPecies IDentity and Evolution in R is a new R package implementing a number of useful analyses for DNA barcoding studies and associated research into species delimitation and speciation. Included are functions essential for generating important summary statistics from DNA barcode data, assessing specimen identification efficacy, and for testing and optimizing divergence threshold limits. In terms of investigating evolutionary and taxonomic questions, techniques for assessing diagnostic nucleotides and probability of reciprocal monophyly are also provided. Additionally, a sliding window function offers opportunities to analyse information across a gene, essential for marker design in degraded DNA studies. Spider capitalizes on R's extensible ethos and offers an integrated platform ideal for the analysis of both nucleotide and morphological data. The program can be obtained from the comprehensive R archive network (CRAN, http://cran.r-project.org) and from the R-Forge package development site (http://spider.r-forge.r-project.org/).

DNA barcoding remains a challenge when applied to diet analyses, ancient DNA studies, environmental DNA samples and, more generally, in any cases where DNA samples have not been adequately preserved. Because the size of the commonly used barcoding marker (COI) is over 600 base pairs (bp), amplification fails when the DNA molecule is degraded into smaller fragments. However, relevant information for specimen identification may not be evenly distributed along the barcoding region, and a shorter target can be sufficient for identification purposes. This study proposes a new, widely applicable, method to compare the performance of all potential ‘mini-barcodes’ for a given molecular marker and to objectively select the shortest and most informative one. Our method is based on a sliding window analysis implemented in the new R package SPIDER (Species IDentity and Evolution in R). This method is applicable to any taxon and any molecular marker. Here, it was tested on earthworm DNA that had been degraded through digestion by carnivorous landsnails. A 100 bp region of 16 S rDNA was selected as the shortest informative fragment (mini-barcode) required for accurate specimen identification. Corresponding primers were designed and used to amplify degraded earthworm (prey) DNA from 46 landsnail (predator) faeces using 454-pyrosequencing. This led to the detection of 18 earthworm species in the diet of the snail. We encourage molecular ecologists to use this method to objectively select the most informative region of the gene they aim to amplify from degraded DNA. The method and tools provided here, can be particularly useful (1) when dealing with degraded DNA for which only small fragments can be amplified, (2) for cases where no consensus has yet been reached on the appropriate barcode gene, or (3) to allow direct analysis of short reads derived from massively parallel sequencing without the need for bioinformatic consolidation.

Despite the negative impact that many scarab larvae have on agro-ecosystems, very little attention has been paid to their taxonomy. Their often extremely similar morphological characteristics have probably contributed to this impediment, which has also meant that they are very difficult to identify in the field. Molecular methods can overcome this challenge and are particularly useful for the identification of larvae to enable management of pest species occurring sympatrically with nonpest species. However, the invasive collection of DNA samples for such molecular methods is not compatible with subsequent behavioural, developmental or fitness studies. Two noninvasive DNA sampling and DNA analysis methods suitable for the identification of larvae from closely related scarab species were developed here. Using the frass and larval exuviae as sources of DNA, field-collected larvae of Costelytra zealandica (White) and Costelytra brunneum (Broun) (Scarabaeidae: Melolonthinae) were identified by multiplex PCR based on the difference in size of the resulting PCR products. This study also showed that small quantities of frass can be used reliably even 7 days after excretion. This stability of the DNA is of major importance in ecological studies where timeframes rarely allow daily monitoring. The approach developed here is readily transferable to the study of any holometabolous insect species for which morphological identification of larval stages is difficult.

The use of DNA data is ubiquitous across animal sciences. DNA may be obtained from an organism for a myriad of reasons including identification and distinction between cryptic species, sex identification, comparisons of different morphocryptic genotypes or assessments of relatedness between organisms prior to a behavioural study. DNA should be obtained while minimizing the impact on the fitness, behaviour or welfare of the subject being tested, as this can bias experimental results and cause long-lasting effects on wild animals. Furthermore, minimizing impact on experimental animals is a key Refinement principle within the ‘3Rs’ framework which aims to ensure that animal welfare during experimentation is optimised. The term ‘non-invasive DNA sampling’ has been defined to indicate collection methods that do not require capture or cause disturbance to the animal, including any effects on behaviour or fitness. In practice this is not always the case, as the term ‘non-invasive’ is commonly used in the literature to describe studies where animals are restrained or subjected to aversive procedures. We reviewed the non-invasive DNA sampling literature for the past six years (380 papers published in 2013-2018) and uncovered the existence of a significant gap between the current use of this terminology (i.e. ‘non-invasive DNA sampling’) and its original definition. We show that 58% of the reviewed papers did not comply with the original definition. We discuss the main experimental and ethical issues surrounding the potential confusion or misuse of the phrase ‘non-invasive DNA sampling’ in the current literature and provide potential solutions. In addition, we introduce the terms ‘non-disruptive’ and ‘minimally disruptive’ DNA sampling, to indicate methods that eliminate or minimise impacts not on the physical integrity/structure of the animal, but on its behaviour, fitness and welfare, which in the literature reviewed corresponds to the situation for which an accurate term is clearly missing. Furthermore, we outline when these methods are appropriate to use.