s is likely a synapomorphy

s. is likely a synapomorphy Cilengitide ic50 (Seitzman et al. 2011), though the fungus may not be entirely beneficial to its host (Agerer 2012). The habit of parasitizing bryophytes and different types of algae (i.e., in bryophilous and lichen-forming species) is likely involved in several adaptive radiations within subfamily Lichenomphalioideae, though the most basal group, (Arrhenia, tribe Arrheniae) is apparently free-living (Lawrey et al. 2009). The trophic habits for many Hygrophoraceae remains unknown, but circumstantial evidence from environmental see more sequencing projects suggests the possibility that Hygrocybe s.l.

and Cuphophyllus may obtain recent plant carbon as rhizosphere or endophytic symbionts. Fungal systematists, parataxonomists and fungal conservationists use named subgenera, sections and subsections in Hygrocybe s.l. Many authors, but especially Selleck GSK1120212 Donk (1962), Clémençon

(1982), Redhead et al. (1995, 2002, 2011), Kovalenko (1988, 1989, 1999, 2012), Candusso (1997) and Lawrey et al. (2011) were instrumental in verifying and publishing correct generic and infrageneric names and combinations in the Hygrophoraceae, and we hope we have corrected most of the remaining errors. Some systematists and many conservationists and parataxonomists primarily use infrageneric names in Hygrocybe rather than the segregate genera recognized in this paper. With the exception of Cuphophyllus, the use of Hygrocybe s.l. is not incorrect as long as Hygroaster is assigned an infrageneric rank in Hygrocybe, so we provide a dual nomenclature of Hygrocybe s.l. for all user groups. Cuphophyllus appears at the base of the Hygrophoraceae near the backbone of the Agaricales whereas Hygrocybe is terminal, so placing these in the same genus would require using the oldest genus name, Hygrophorus, for the entire family. Further work remains to be done in making new combinations, especially recombining species of Camarophyllus, Hygrocybe and Hygrophorus in Cuphophyllus. Many species previously believed to be amphi-Atlantic were found to not be conspecific FER as they

belong to separate clades, and those that are not from the same region as the type locality will need new or resurrected names. Predominantly arctic-alpine taxa (e.g., Lichenomphalia spp.) likely are exceptions to this general trend, as they apparently are capable of frequent dispersals on a circumpolar scale (Geml et al. 2012). Sequencing more gene regions and new genes are needed to provide the basis for further higher level revisions, especially in Hygrocybe subg. Pseudohygrocybe, Gliophorus and Neohygrocybe in tribe Humidicuteae, and Cuphophyllus. Sequencing of more species is also needed in undersampled groups such as Humidicutis, Gliophorus, Neohygrocybe and Cuphophyllus, especially species from Australasia. The most basal species in several clades in our analyses are from the Australasian region, e.g., Porpolomopsis lewelliniae, Gliophorus graminicolor from Tasmania and a G.

Comments are closed.