“…Molecular studies have revealed that characters such as basidioma formation and habit, hymenophore type, and color of spore-print were traditionally overemphasized (Singer 1986;Horak 2005) and are not reliable phylogenetic markers at higher taxonomic level, having resulted in many artificial groups (Hibbett et al 1997;Hibbett 2007He et al 2019;Varga et al 2019;Sánchez-García et al 2020). While some nongilled resupinate, cyphelloid, aphyllophoralean, and gasteroid fungi should be included in Agaricales (Hibbett et al 1997;Bodensteiner et al 2004;Binder et al 2005Binder et al , 2010Matheny et al 2006a, b;Sulistyo et al 2021), the opposite is also true-some typical pileate-stipitate gilled mushroom occur in other orders of Agaricomycetes: Lactifluus, Lactarius, Lentinellus, Multifurca, and Russula in Russulales (Miller et al 2006;Buyck et al 2008); Erytrophylloporus, Hygrophoropsis, Paxillus, Phylloporopsis, Phylloporus, and Tapinella in Boletales (Binder and Hibbett 2006;Farid et al 2018;Vadthanarat et al 2019b); and Contumyces, Gyroflexus, and Rickenella in Hymenochaetales (Larsson et al 2006). Automated searches of the NCBI GenBank and MycoCosm databases by Kalichman et al (2020) found that 7% of generic names of Agaricales had DNA sequences of their type specimens, 68% had sequences of their type species, 87% of genera were represented by sequences (nontype), and 103 accepted genera lacked sequence data.…”