Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • Usnea dasopoga (Ach.) Nyl. and U. barbata (L.) F. H. Wigg. (Ascomycetes, Parmeliaceae) are two different species: a plea for reliable identifications in molecular studies

  • Philippe Clerc, Yamama Naciri
  • Journal:
    The Lichenologist / Volume 53 / Issue 3 / May 2021
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    26 May 2021, pp. 221-230
    Print publication:
    May 2021

  • 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.