Wildlife surveys rely on an accurate taxonomic framework. Identification tools used to reach this goal are not equivalent and may depend on several objectives and constraints, including sampling conservation difficulties, the invasiveness of the sampling techniques, sampling capacity, the relevance of the results, materials needed, the cost and the user time required in the field and laboratory. This article presents and discusses the advantages and limits of each identification tool used in the Ceropath (Community ecology of rodents and their pathogens in South East Asia) program to reach a fast and relevant identification of the rodents sampled. It is concluded that there needs to be a combination of the results from different methods, including the most recent ones, to achieve an improvement in taxonomic identification.Keywords: morphology, morphometry, cytotaxonomy, molecular phylogeny, barcoding
