Are there any chance for wireshark to determine 802.15.4 protocols incorrectly?

edit

To add some details, this is the code which adds the LwMesh dissector heuristically to 802.15.4

It registers this heuristics function to determine if this is in fact LwMesh.

As Graham said, it's not very strong, so prone to false positives.

Thanks for you guys' answer !
After I posted this question, we even get out hands on a PC with Ubiqua Packet Analyzer and did some capture & analysis on the traffic. It shows that at least till the NWK layer it is using Zigbee as its protocol, but with private Zigbee cluster.
Since the heuristic for lwmesh is weak, I guess it will be more proper to change my question into "Why didn't wireshark dissect these traffic as Zigbee"
Does this have anything to do with "the traffic bar the frame control field" graham is talking about?

My comment "the lwmesh dissector fails to dissect any of the traffic bar the frame control field" was meant to indicate that the traffic was mis-dissected as lwmesh due to the weak heuristic and could only dissect the first byte of data.

Wireshark won't automatically dissect traffic as ZigBee, you have to use "Decode As ...", again it uses heuristics to determine if the traffic is ZigBee. As I mentioned in my answer, I tried this for your capture and it didn't seem to dissect very well so might not have been ZigBee traffic, for example the "Sequence Number" in all the alleged ZigBee NWK layer packets is 0, this seems wrong.

How confident are you that the Ubiqua analyzer is correctly dissecting the traffic?

@ grahamb
I had sniffed some traffic from Zigbee certified devices before and Wireshark did automatically dissect them as Zigbee traffic, so that's why I seemed like thinking Wireshark has the ability to automatically tell apart 802.15.4 protocols without user specifically choosing which protocol it should dissect as...

Ubiqua is recommended by Texas Instrument, stating that it is even better at analyzing 802.15.4 traffic then Wireshark does. So I guess the confidence level is high enough. ( Although I should admit that we are not really familiar with this tool. )

Thank you for providing the insight about "sequence number" being zero is wrong, it really provided a much clearer way for me to do further investigation and learning!

All the 802.15.4 subprotocols seem to use heuristics, and quite weak at that so it's a bit pot-luck as to what you get.

Can you dump the Ubiqua output in a text form for your capture so it can be compared with the Wireshark output and determine if the Wireshark dissector can be improved?