A recent paper in this journal concerning parasites of rock pigeons (Columba livia) published by Ali and colleagues exemplifies a growing trend of misidentified parasites in the literature, despite increased online resources that should help facilitate accurate identification. In the Ali et al. paper, a pigeon louse in the genus Columbicola (Phthiraptera: Ischnocera) is misidentified as Menopon gallinae, which is a parasite of chickens (Gallus gallus) and their relatives; moreover, this louse is from an entirely different suborder of lice (Phthiraptera: Amblycera). Another louse is misidentified as Goniodes dissimilis, another parasite of chickens and junglefowl. In addition, photographs of cestodes from pigeons in the same paper are not sufficient to confirm identification. Misidentifications are fueled, in part, by increasing pressure to publish coupled with a decrease in taxonomic expertise. We consider the downstream consequences of misidentification and suggest guidelines for authors, reviewers, and editors that could help to improve the reliability of specimen-based research.

在关于岩石鸽（寄生虫本杂志最近的一篇文章科伦巴利维娅阿里和他的同事例证了文献错误识别的寄生虫的增长趋势出版），尽管增加的在线资源，应可帮助方便准确的识别。在阿里等。纸，在属鸽子虱Columbicola（虱目：Ischnocera）被误认为Menopon鸡皮，这是鸡的寄生虫（原鸡）和他们的亲属; 而且，这种虱子来自虱子的完全不同的亚纲（Phthiraptera：Amblycera）。另一个虱子被误认为是食角菌，是鸡和丛林禽的另一种寄生虫。此外，在同一张纸上从鸽子身上获得的to割照片不足以确认身份。由于出版压力的增加以及分类学专业知识的减少，错误标识的出现在一定程度上加剧了错误。我们考虑了误识别的下游后果，并为作者，审稿人和编辑提供了指南，这些指南可能有助于提高基于标本的研究的可靠性。