Epitypification of Hebeloma crustuliniforme

Abstract

It is widely recognised that there is no consistent use of the name H. crustuliniforme. The name has been used to represent a number of different taxa and indeed taxa from sections of Hebeloma that are morphologically and molecularly well separated. The holotype of H. crustuliniforme is plate 308 Bulliard from 1787 and while it can be interpreted, no such interpretation can be without ambiguity. It is clear from existing literature that modern authors have applied numerous different interpretations to this name and no real consensus exists. Indeed it appears that at various times most of the medium to large species within both sections Denudata and Velutipes Vesterh. have been referred to as H. crustuliniforme. Within this paper an epitype is selected for H. crustuliniforme in order to give the taxon a precise meaning and a detailed species description is given. Molecular data combined with the results of intercompatibility tests of Aanen and Kuyper published earlier support the definition of H. crustuliniforme adopted in this paper as a distinct taxon and as a biological species. We strongly recommend that this taxon be referred to as Hebeloma crustuliniforme (Bull.) Qu,l. emend. Vesterh., U. Eberh. & Beker in order to emphasise that it is the specific taxon rather than the complex to which it is being referred

Decrypting the <I>Hebeloma crustuliniforme</I> complex: European species of <I>Hebeloma</I> section <I>Denudata</I> subsection <I>Denudata</I> (<I>Agaricales</I>)

“…Bootstrap support is better with this region, with the species clades of H. crustuliniforme , H. louiseae , H. luteicystidiatum , H. lutense , H. pallidolabiatum and H. pusillum receiving bootstrap support of 86 % or more. Part of the H. crustuliniforme complex ( Vesterholt et al 2014 ), without H. crustuliniforme but including H. louiseae and H. pallidolabiatum (which were not included in the former publication) receive 90 % bootstrap support. There are additional supported clades ( Fig.…”

“…Below we give descriptions of all species of H. subsect. Denudata discussed in this paper, with the exception of H. crustuliniforme , which was described in Vesterholt et al (2014) . Although a number of these species have been treated extensively in the literature, our diagnosis may be narrower (based wholly on the collections cited in this paper) and hence we feel a full description is necessary in order to properly define the morphological species concepts.…”

“…Details of DNA extraction, PCR and sequencing primers have been provided earlier ( Eberhardt et al 2009 , 2013 , Eberhardt & Beker 2010 , Vesterholt et al 2014 ). Raw sequence data were edited in Sequencher (v. 4.9, Gene Codes Corporation, Ann Arbor, MI, USA).…”

“…Hebeloma crustuliniforme is one of the most often recorded ( Vesterholt et al 2014 ) species of the genus Hebeloma , but it is widely recognised that what has in the past been referred to as H. crustuliniforme is among the most notorious species complexes that have long defied recognition of individual taxa. In Vesterholt et al (2014) we proposed an epitype for H. crustuliniforme so as to tie this name to a particular taxon within this complex, which we then suggested should be referred to as H. crustuliniforme (Bull.) Quél.…”

“…Denudata we include fifteen species occurring in Europe, eight of which are new to science. Hebeloma crustuliniforme was described in a recent publication ( Vesterholt et al 2014 ); this paper provides descriptions of the remaining fourteen taxa encountered in Europe and a key to all fifteen species, allowing the reader to appreciate species distinctions. Eleven of the fifteen species are likely to correspond to eleven ICGs identified by Aanen and Kuyper ( Aanen 1999 , Aanen & Kuyper 1999 , 2004 ).…”