Need morphology always be required for new species descriptions?

Abstract

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 morphology always be included in a species description. It is not the data type per se that is important, but the science behind the taxonomic conclusions. Using alternative kinds of data for descriptions should not cause problems for taxonomy if links are kept with type specimens.