<i>Omphalina sensu lato</i>in North America 4:<i>O. rosella</i>

Redhead, Scott A.; Walker, Glenn R.; Ammirati, Joseph F.; Norvell, Lorelei L.

doi:10.1080/00275514.1995.12026609

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…was described from eastern North America. While these two taxa were thought to be conspecific (Redhead et al 1995), our ITS sequences from Europe and western North America are 5 % divergent, and there are some morphological differences (SR) suggesting they likely represent different species. We were unsuccessful in sequencing collections of A. lilacifolius from eastern North America for comparison, so we are uncertain as to whether it is conspecific with the western North American taxon.…”

Section: Genera Includedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many authors, but especially Donk (1962), Clémençon (1982), Redhead et al (1995Redhead et al ( , 2002Redhead et al ( , 2011, Kovalenko (1988Kovalenko ( , 1989Kovalenko ( , 1999Kovalenko ( , 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.…”

Section: Excluded Generamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Maas Geesteranus (1992) subsequently excluded A. lilacifolius from Mycena based on its inamyloid spores, (erroneously) an absence of dextrinoid reaction in the lamellar context, and absence of cheilocystidia. Redhead et al (1995) synonymized A. lilacifolius with A. cyanophylla and erected the genus Chromosera to accommodate this enigmatic taxon, believing it to be most closely allied with Mycena based on the dextrinoid context. While the genus Chromosera was validly published in 1995, an incorrect citation was used in recombining the type species as C. cyanophylla (Art.…”

Section: Species Includedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Molecular phylogeny, morphology, pigment chemistry and ecology in Hygrophoraceae (Agaricales)

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Molecular phylogenies using 1-4 gene regions and information on ecology, morphology and pigment chemistry were used in a partial revision of the agaric family Hygrophoraceae. The phylogenetically supported genera we recognize here in the Hygrophoraceae based on these and previous analyses are: Acantholichen, Ampulloclitocybe, Arrhenia, Cantharellula, Cantharocybe, Chromosera, Chrysomphalina, Cora, Corella, Cuphophyllus, Cyphellostereum, Dictyonema, Eonema, Gliophorus, Haasiella, Humidicutis, Hygroaster, Hygrocybe, Hygrophorus, Lichenomphalia, Neohygrocybe, Porpolomopsis and Pseudoarmillariella. A new genus that is sister to Chromosera is described as Gloioxanthomyces. Revisions were made at the ranks of subfamily, tribe, genus, subgenus, section and subsection. We present three new subfamilies, eight tribes (five new), eight subgenera (one new, one new combination and one stat. nov.), 26 sections (five new and three new combinations and two stat. nov.) and 14 subsections (two new, two stat. nov.). Species of Chromosera, Gliophorus, Humidicutis, and Neohygrocybe are often treated within the genus Hygrocybe; we therefore provide valid names in both classification systems. We used a minimalist approach in transferring genera and creating new names and combinations. Consequently, we retain in the Hygrophoraceae the basal cuphophylloid grade comprising the genera Cuphophyllus, Ampulloclitocybe and Cantharocybe, despite weak phylogenetic support. We include Aeruginospora and Semiomphalina in Hygrophoraceae based on morphology though molecular data are lacking. The lower hygrophoroid clade is basal to Hygrophoraceae s.s., comprising the genera Aphroditeola, Macrotyphula, Phyllotopsis, Pleurocybella, Sarcomyxa, Tricholomopsis and Typhula.

show abstract

Section: Genera Includedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Excluded Generamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Species Includedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Molecular phylogeny, morphology, pigment chemistry and ecology in Hygrophoraceae (Agaricales)

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Stable isotope analyses reveal previously unknown trophic mode diversity in the Hymenochaetales

Korotkin

Swenie

Miettinen

et al. 2018

American J of Botany

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

agarics or mushroom-forming fungi that typically occur on or with bryophytes-particularly mosses or liverworts-or that occur on soil (Redhead et al., 2002) (Fig. 1). These non-lignicolous fungi, particularly the bryophilous agarics (Racovitza, 1959;Davey and Currah, 2006), were previously treated as Agaricales Underw. due to similarities in basidiome morphology (Redhead et al., 2002) but were recovered in the Hymenochaetales by molecular phylogenetic analyses (Moncalvo et al., 2000(Moncalvo et al., , 2002Redhead et al., 2002). Later, the group was referred to as the Rickenella clade (Larsson et al., 2006) and classified in the family Rickenellaceae Vizzini (Vizzini, 2010;Nakasone and Burdsall, 2012), the name of which, unfortunately, is illegitimate due to inclusion of the type of the earlier described family Repetobasidiaceae Jülich (Jülich, 1981). In addition, the diversity of its constituents is unsettled, the monophyly of the group has been questioned (

show abstract

Omphalina sensu latoin North America 4:O. rosella

Cited by 2 publications

References 4 publications

Molecular phylogeny, morphology, pigment chemistry and ecology in Hygrophoraceae (Agaricales)

Molecular phylogeny, morphology, pigment chemistry and ecology in Hygrophoraceae (Agaricales)

Stable isotope analyses reveal previously unknown trophic mode diversity in the Hymenochaetales

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About