The current ITS-based phylogeny covering the most comprehensive sampling of Xylodon till now recovered the four lineages of X. laurentianus, X. novozelandicus, X. patagonicus and X. raduloides, each not receiving strong support; the lineage of X. subtropicus being composed of two original Asian specimens described by Chen et al. [15] occupied a basal position of the four lineages (Figure 1). Like the phylogeny based on ITS region (Figure 1), that based on three genes also recovered the four lineages, and no one was strongly supported, neither was the clade being composed of these four lineages (Figure 2). Alternatively, these four lineages together with the basal lineage of X. subtropicus formed a strongly supported clade (Figure 2). In the phylogeny based on seven genes (Figure 5), the two original specimens of X. subtropicus with only ITS and nLSU regions available were not included; the lineage of X. raduloides was strongly supported, whereas those of X. laurentianus, X. novozelandicus and X. patagonicus were weakly to moderately supported; the clade consisting of these four lineages was strongly supported. In these three phylogenies (Figures 2 and 5), the newly sequenced Australian specimens merged in the lineage of X. novozelandicus. Besides the topologies, the branch lengths among these lineages are also too short to clearly distinguish species and fall within the infraspecific distances observed in several other well accepted species in the genus (Figures 2 and 5). Taking into consideration the morphological similarity, the current phylogenies and the low level of divergence, we consider X. laurentianus, X. novozelandicus, X. patagonicus, X. raduloides and X. subtropicus to be conspecific with the last one as the correct name.