The paper is a reaction to that published by PACKER et al. (2009, Molecular Ecology Resources 9, Suppl.1: 42–50), depreciating the value of traditional – especially morphological – data in taxonomical studies as “mediocre” and boosting instead the simplistic ‘barcoding’ procedures as “obviously effi cient”. Having explicitly stated my – as a ‘traditional’ taxonomist – ‘decalogue’, I show that accusation of “lust for monopolization of knowledge” and “vociferous hostility” towards the adherents of an alternate approach is glaringly misdirected by PACKER et al. and in fact fi ts much better the attitude of ‘barcoders’ themselves; while point-by-point evaluation of the arguments and examples set forth by them allowed to refute both their main claims and confi rm once again that morphological data, far from being accusable of “mediocrity”, still usually (some special situations excepted) provide the most reliable source of evidence for taxonomic conclusions, whereas simplistic ‘barcoding’ is obviously ineffi cient in basic research (as opposed to some practical applications) and thence unqualified for the role of anything more than occasional preliminary ‘proxy’.

Barcoding, basic research, morphological data, taxonomy