Researchers are increasingly using museum collections for taxonomy, systematics, phylogenetics, and faunal analyses, and they assume that taxonomic identifications on museum labels are correct. However, identifications may be incorrect or out of date, which could result in false conclusions from subsequent research. A recent geometric morphometrics analysis of skulls of African canids by Machado and Teta (2020) suggested that Canis lupaster soudanicus is a junior synonym of Lupulella adusta. However, the holotype of soudanicus was not measured and further investigation of the putative soudanicus specimens used in this study showed that these originally were identified as L. adusta. This original identification was confirmed by dental measurements, which also confirm that the holotype of soudanicus is Canis lupaster. Hence, soudanicus should not be synonymized with L. adusta. This example highlights the importance of careful checking of species identifications of museum specimens prior to research and, where possible, including (holo)types of taxa, before making taxonomic changes that could have important consequences for species conservation and management.

中文翻译：

---

博物馆标本错误识别的后果：Canis lupaster soudanicus 的分类地位

研究人员越来越多地将博物馆藏品用于分类学、系统学、系统发育学和动物群分析，并且他们假设博物馆标签上的分类识别是正确的。但是，识别可能不正确或过时，这可能会导致后续研究得出错误的结论。最近由 Machado 和 Teta（2020 年）对非洲犬科动物头骨的几何形态计量学分析表明，Canis lupaster soudanicus 是 Lupulella adusta 的次要同义词。然而，没有测量 soudanicus 的正模标本，对本研究中使用的假定 soudanicus 标本的进一步调查表明，这些最初被确定为 L. adusta。这一原始鉴定通过牙科测量得到证实，这也证实了 soudanicus 的正模标本是 Canis lupaster。因此，soudanicus 不应与 L. adusta 同义。这个例子强调了在研究之前仔细检查博物馆标本的物种识别的重要性，并在可能对物种保护和管理产生重要影响的分类学变化之前，在可能的情况下，包括分类群的（全）类型。