Using molecular data to delimit species or reconstruct their evolutionary history is now widely used across all organisms. However, such analyses can suffer from poor or false specimen identifications leading to incorrect conclusions. Here we show that the use of misidentified specimens in a phylogenetic framework resulted in questionable conclusions in a previously published study (Mark et al. 2016). Using morphological, chemical and statistical analyses on the specimens used in that study, we found support for Usnea barbata and U. dasopoga being morphologically and anatomically distinct species with separate clusters in the molecular phylogeny. Furthermore, our revision of specimen identifications refutes the synonymization of U. substerilis with U. lapponica. In conclusion, we discuss the issue of correct identification of voucher specimens in DNA databases and conclude with some general suggestions to avoid false specimen identifications in phylogenetic studies.

中文翻译：

---

Usnea dasopoga (Ach.) Nyl。和 U. barbata (L.) FH Wigg。(Ascomycetes, Parmeliaceae) 是两个不同的物种：在分子研究中寻求可靠鉴定

使用分子数据来划分物种或重建它们的进化历史现在已广泛用于所有生物体。然而，此类分析可能会因样本识别不佳或错误而导致得出错误结论。在这里，我们表明在系统发育框架中使用错误识别的标本导致先前发表的研究（Mark等。2016）。对该研究中使用的标本进行形态学、化学和统计分析，我们发现支持松萝和U. dasopoga是形态和解剖学上不同的物种，在分子系统发育中具有不同的簇。此外，我们对标本识别的修订驳斥了同义词U. substerilis和美国拉普尼卡。总之，我们讨论了在 DNA 数据库中正确识别凭证标本的问题，并提出了一些一般性建议，以避免在系统发育研究中出现错误的标本识别。