First, there is nothing wrong with careful use of a DNA barcode to help identify an unknown specimen; indeed, in some cases, it might be the most effective way to find a name for many species. The caveat is that the unknown specimen needing identification is from a previously described (known to science) species. Problems arise when the unknown specimen comes from the majority of biodiversity that is undescribed, and the barcode becomes the only data by which the species is understood. This is unlikely to be the case for most vertebrates or many plants because most species are already known. Although there are special cases in which a life stage or body part is difficult to identify to species (DeSalle & Birstein 1996; Rubinoff 2006), many vertebrate and plant specimens may be identifiable without a need for DNA. For specific uses such as quarantine against known insect pests, barcodes could be invaluable for speed and accuracy. Nevertheless, the biodiversity crisis is the rapid loss of species, especially those that have never been identified, described, or studied. They are the great unknown, the “taxonomic impediment” to understanding and preserving biodiversity, and at least part of the rationale for the initial barcoding proposals (Hebert et al. 2003). Many, if not most, of these unknown species are insects, the bulk of this planet’s biodiversity. Therefore, finding barcodes for previously described species is not going to address these unknown species and help us understand the scope or scale of the biodiversity crisis. There is nothing inherently wrong with having barcodes for previously identified species, if the DNA sequences are properly analyzed (DeSalle et al. 2005). But generating barcodes for known species is not the best way to conserve the vast number of unknown, never-identified species. I suggest such a practice is akin to tidying one’s room while the house is on fire.