Multiple species delimitation approaches with COI barcodes poorly fit each other and morphospecies – An integrative taxonomy case of Sri Lankan Sericini chafers (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae)

DNA taxonomy including barcoding and metabarcoding is widely used to explore the diversity in biodiversity hotspots. In most of these hotspot areas, chafers are represented by a multitude of species, which are well defined by the complex shape of male genitalia. Here, we explore how well COI barcode data reflect morphological species entities and thus their usability for accelerated species inventorization. We conducted dedicated field surveys in Sri Lanka to collect the species‐rich and highly endemic Sericini chafers (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Congruence among results of a series of protocols for de novo species delimitation and with morphology‐based species identifications was investigated. Different delimitation methods, such as the Poisson tree processes (PTP) model, Statistical Parsimony Analysis (TCS), Automatic Barcode Gap Discovery (ABGD), Assemble Species by Automatic Partitioning (ASAP), and Barcode Index Number (BIN) assignments, resulted in different numbers of molecular operational taxonomic units (MOTUs). All methods showed both over‐splitting and lumping of morphologically identified species. Only 18 of the observed 45 morphospecies perfectly matched MOTUs from all methods. The congruence of delimitation between MOTUs and morphospecies expressed by the match ratio was low, ranging from 0.57 to 0.67. TCS and multirate PTP (mPTP) showed the highest match ratio, while (BIN) assignment resulted in the lowest match ratio and most splitting events. mPTP lumped more species than any other method. Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) on a match ratio‐based distance matrix revealed incongruent outcomes of multiple DNA delimitation methods, although applied to the same data. Our results confirm that COI barcode data alone are unlikely to correctly delimit all species, in particular, when using only a single delimitation approach. We encourage the integration of various approaches and data, particularly morphology, to validate species boundaries.