Fig 3 - available via license: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Content may be subject to copyright.
Maximum Likelihood result (ITS) for placing Homophron helvolescens in a taxonomic context. Support values are from 1000 replicates of SH-like approximate likelihood ratio tests and ultrafast bootstrap. Support values ≥ 85% (SH-like approximate
Source publication
Here, we present the results of studies of Japanese Hebeloma collections. The four species described by Imai as Hebeloma ( H . fimicola , H . helvolescens , H . humosum , and H . tomoeae ) are not from the genus Hebeloma , but are members of Agrocybe , Homophron , or Pholiota . Recombinations are made. Hebeloma crustuliniforme f. microspermum , des...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... for Homophron includes 35 ITS sequences and 708 positions. Homophron spadiceum is the type species of the genus. We have made an effort to sample all variation from UNITE SH1186588.08FU (which includes the epitype of Ho. spadiceum), because it was not possible to see the species limits of Ho. spadiceum. The result of the analysis is shown in Fig. 3. The topology is rooted with Lacrymaria spp. The clade indicated as "Homophron spadiceum s.l." consists of a number of subclades, some appear to be geographically restricted, among which Ho. helvolescens is in a subclade with sequences from Japan and ...
Context 2
... collections examined: Japan, Tokyo,the "Homophron spacideum s.l." clade of Fig. 3. This clade includes a number of supported (and unsupported) subclades that appear to have restricted geographical distributions. However, the sequence variation underlying these clades is so small (see scale in Fig. 3) and the data is only from a single locus that we hesitate to recognize them as hypotheses of distinct species. ...
Context 3
... collections examined: Japan, Tokyo,the "Homophron spacideum s.l." clade of Fig. 3. This clade includes a number of supported (and unsupported) subclades that appear to have restricted geographical distributions. However, the sequence variation underlying these clades is so small (see scale in Fig. 3) and the data is only from a single locus that we hesitate to recognize them as hypotheses of distinct species. Vašutová et al. (2008) stressed that ITS is not sufficient for delimiting species in the Psathyrellaceae. Thus, it is not clear whether Ho. helvolescens is indeed a later synonym of Ho. spadiceum. Description of syntypes: The ...
Similar publications
William Alphonso Murrill was an American mycologist of the early 20th century. He described 1453 new species of Agaricales, Boletales, and Polyporales. Within these were 44 taxa that he described as Hebeloma or that he recombined into Hebeloma. Additionally, there are five species, of which we are aware, that Murrill described within other genera t...
Citations
... Datasets for macrofungal genera representing multiple phyla and orders were assembled according to recent taxonomy and the availability of relevant sequence data. These datasets represent Agaricales (Hebeloma [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46], Laccaria [47,48], and Marasmius), Boletales (Suillus [49]), Russulales (Russula, Stereum [50]), Polyporales (Trametes [51]), Thelephorales (Sarcodon), Cantharellales (Hydnum), Pezizales (Morchella) and Eurotiales (Elaphomyces [52,53]) ( Figure 2). The assignation of nrITS sequences to species followed the conclusions made by the authors or the conclusions of the referenced taxonomic studies. ...
The nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (nrITS) region has been widely used in fungal diversity studies. Environmental metabarcoding has increased the importance of the fungal DNA barcode in documenting fungal diversity and distribution. The DNA barcode gap is seen as the difference between intra- and inter-specific pairwise distances in a DNA barcode. The current understanding of the barcode gap in macrofungi is limited, inhibiting the development of best practices in applying the nrITS region toward research on fungal diversity. This study examined the barcode gap using 5146 sequences representing 717 species of macrofungi from eleven genera, eight orders and two phyla in datasets assembled by taxonomic experts. Intra- and inter-specific pairwise distances were measured from sequence and phylogenetic data. The results demonstrate that barcode gaps are influenced by differences in intra- and inter-specific variance in pairwise distances. In terms of DNA barcode behavior, variance is greater in the ITS1 than ITS2, and variance is greater in both relative to the combined nrITS region. Due to the difference in variance, the barcode gaps in the ITS2 region are greater than in the ITS1. Additionally, the taxonomic approach of “splitting” taxa into numerous taxonomic units produces greater barcode gaps when compared to “lumping”. The results show variability in the barcode gaps between fungal taxa, demonstrating a need to understand the accuracy of DNA barcoding in quantifying species richness. For taxonomic studies, variability in nrITS sequence data supports the application of multiple molecular markers to corroborate the taxonomic and systematic delineation of species.
... Newly generated sequences were accessioned to GenBank and received accession numbers MT157306, OP160001, OP162978-OP163006, OP163129-OP163165, and OP168761. Details are listed in SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE 3. Previously published sequences (Argüelles-Moyao et al. 2017;Bandini et al. 2019Bandini et al. , 2021aBandini et al. , 2021bBandini et al. , 2022aBandini et al. , 2022bBeker et al. 2010Beker et al. , 2013Beker et al. , 2016Beker et al. , 2018Bidartondo and Read 2008;Bizio and Castellan 2017;Bowman and Arnold 2021;Brock et al. 2009;Brown et al. 2022;Cervini et al. 2020;Chen et al. 2018;Cho et al. 2016;Christ et al. 2011;Clausing and Polle 2020;Cripps et al. 2019;Crous et al. 2018;Csizmár et al. 2021;Eberhardt et al. 2009Eberhardt et al. , 2013Eberhardt et al. , 2016aEberhardt et al. , 2016bEberhardt et al. , 2018Eberhardt et al. , 2020aEberhardt et al. , 2020bEberhardt et al. , 2021Eberhardt et al. , 2022aEberhardt et al. , 2022bEberhardt et al. , 2022cFan and Bau 2018;Frings et al. 2020;Garrido-Benavent et al. 2020;Grilli et al. 2016;Guzman-Davalos et al. 2003;Hallen et al. 2003;Harrower et al. 2011;Hashimoto et al. 2012;Holec et al. 2014Holec et al. , 2016Hughes et al. 2009;Hyde et al. 2016;Jabeen and Khalid 2020;Kasuya and Hosaka 2017;Katanić et al. 2016;Kennedy et al. 2011;Kranabetter et al. 2015;Krisai-Greilhuber et al. 2018;Kropp et al. 2013;Krüger et al. 2012;Landry et al. 2021;Larsson et al. 2009Larsson et al. , 2014Latha et al. 2016;Malysheva and Kiyashko 2011;Malysheva et al. 2016;Marchetti et al. 2014;Matheny 2005;Matheny and Bougher 2017;Matheny et al. 2002Matheny et al. , 2006Matheny et al. , 2007Matheny et al. , 2015Matheny et al. , 2020Niskanen et al. 2011Niskanen et al. , 2012Olchowik et al. 2021;Osmundson et al. 2013;Peintner et al. 2004;Rodríguez-Gutíerrez et al. 2020;Ryberg et al. 2008Ryberg et al. , 2010Schoch et al. 2012Schoch et al. , 2014Seger et al. 2017;Sesli 2021;Soop et al. 2019;Stensrud et al. 2014;Suz et al. 2014;Tedersoo et al. 2003Tedersoo et al. , 2006Tedersoo et al. , 2020Thorn et al. 1996;Tian and Matheny 2021;van der Walt et al. 2020;Vašutová et al. 2018;Vauras and Larsson 2020;Vesterholt et al. 2014;Vu et al. 2019;Walther et al. 2005;Yang et al. 2005;Zhang et al. 2017) Vašutová et al. 2018Vauras and Larsson 2020;Vesterholt et al. 2014;Vu et al. 2019;Walther et al. 2005;Yang et al. 2005;Zhang et al. 2017) used in this study are summarized in SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE 4. To determine the taxonomic relationships of sequences from collections that were not Hebeloma, BLAST searches were carried out against GenBank (Johnson et al. 2008), UNITE (Kõljalg et al. 2005), and BOLD (Ratnasingham and Hebert 2007) databases. BLAST searches against our own data were done in Geneious R10 (Biomatters, Auckland, New Zealand) with default settings. ...
... The microscopic features, the habitat, and the ITS (FIG. 5) generated from the holotype support the synonymization with A. pediades, but ITS might not be sufficient to distinguish between A. pediades and closely related taxa such as A. imaii with a different ecology, if ecology was shown to distinguish species in this complex (Eberhardt et al. 2022c). Agrocybe pediades is a member of Agrocybe s.s. ...
William Alphonso Murrill was an American mycologist of the early 20th century. He described 1453 new species of Agaricales, Boletales, and Polyporales. Within these were 44 taxa that he described as Hebeloma or that he recombined into Hebeloma. Additionally, there are five species, of which we are aware, that Murrill described within other genera that should be referred to the genus Hebeloma. A further three species described from northern America by J. P. F. C. Montagne, and transferred to Hebeloma by Saccardo, were commented on by Murrill and not accepted within the genus. These 52 taxa are analyzed here, both morphologically and molecularly, as far as possible. For 18 of his types, internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequences were generated. For two species (H. harperi and H. subfastibile), which were mixed collections, lectotypes are designated. Twenty-three of the taxa analyzed are Hebeloma, as the genus is recognized today, and six of these (H. australe, H. harperi, H. paludicola, H. subaustrale, H. subfastibile, and H. viscidissimum) are regarded as current, i.e., they are names that should be accepted and used. Hebeloma paludicola is an earlier name for H. hygrophilum, described from Europe. Gymnopilus viscidissimus is synonymous with H. amarellum but has priority and is here recombined into Hebeloma. The remaining 17 Hebeloma taxa are synonymized with other species that have priority. The remaining 29 species belong to a range of genera; molecularly supported were Agrocybe, Cortinarius, Inocybe, Inosperma, Phlegmacium, Pholiota, Pseudosperma, and Pyrrhulomyces. Recombinations and synonymizations are made as appropriate and necessary. The names H. alachuanum and H. vatricosum, respectively Inocybe vatricosa, are considered doubtful and should be avoided.
... Thirty-one further species have been published as new or confirmed recently from Europe and other continents (Monedero and Alvarado 2020;Grilli et al. 2020; Page 4 of 20 Bartlett et al. IMA Fungus (2022) 13:13 2020a, 2020b, Eberhardt et al., 2021aEberhardt et al., , 2021bEberhardt et al., , 2022aEberhardt et al., , 2022b. The remaining nine species, from Mexico and the United States, will be discussed in two forthcoming papers (Eberhardt et al. in press, in prep.). ...
The genus Hebeloma is renowned as difficult when it comes to species determination. Historically, many dichotomous keys have been published and used with varying success rate. Over the last 20 years the authors have built a database of Hebeloma collections containing not only metadata but also parametrized morphological descriptions, where for about a third of the cases micromorphological characters have been analysed and are included, as well as DNA sequences for almost every collection. The database now has about 9000 collections including nearly every type collection worldwide and represents over 120 different taxa. Almost every collection has been analysed and identified to species using a combination of the available molecular and morphological data in addition to locality and habitat information. Based on these data an Artificial Intelligence (AI) machine-learning species identifier has been developed that takes as input locality data and a small number of the morphological parameters. Using a random test set of more than 600 collections from the database, not utilized within the set of collections used to train the identifier, the species identifier was able to identify 77% correctly with its highest probabilistic match, 96% within its three most likely determinations and over 99% of collections within its five most likely determinations.
... Although this monograph only addressed the genus within Europe, it has provided a base both morphologically and molecularly. Since the publication of that monograph, a number of papers have been published describing new species of Hebeloma as well as resurrecting long forgotten names that can now be confirmed as valid (e.g., Cripps et al. 2019;Eberhardt et al. 2020aEberhardt et al. , 2020bEberhardt et al. , 2021aEberhardt et al. , 2021bEberhardt et al. , 2022aEberhardt et al. , 2022bMonedero and Alvarado 2020). ...
... Newly generated sequences were accessioned to Gen-Bank (ON167764-ON167898, ON168958-ON168966, ON202494-ON202614 and ON237944-ON237985), Suppl. material 1: Table S1 summarizes all sequences used in the analyses, including those previously published in the context of a number of publications (Eberhardt et al. 2009(Eberhardt et al. , 2015(Eberhardt et al. , 2016a(Eberhardt et al. , 2016b(Eberhardt et al. , 2021a(Eberhardt et al. , 2022a(Eberhardt et al. , 2022bEberhardt and Beker 2010;Beker et al. 2010Beker et al. , 2013Beker et al. , 2016Schoch et al. 2012;Cripps et al. 2019). ...
... Sequences of types were included if available unless missing data (short sequences) had an adverse effect on the taxonomic resolution of the result. The selection of loci, additional species and taxa used for rooting was guided by previous results Cripps et al. 2019;Eberhardt et al. 2021aEberhardt et al. , 2021bEberhardt et al. , 2022aEberhardt et al. , 2022b -and by the loci that could be generated from the collections available. Prior to concatenation, single locus trees (see Suppl. ...
The species of Hebeloma have been little studied in Mexico, but have received attention as edibles and in trials to enhance production of edible fungi and tree growth through inoculation of seedlings with ectomycorrhizal fungi. Here we describe three new species of Hebeloma that are currently known only from Mexico. These species belong to separate sections of the genus: H. ambustiterranum is a member of H. sect. Hebeloma, H. cohaerens belongs to H. sect. Theobromina, while H. magnicystidiatum belongs to H. sect. Denudata. All three species were collected from subtropical pine-oak woodland; all records of H. cohaerens came from altitudes above 2500 m. Hebeloma ambustiterranum is commonly sold in the local markets of Tlaxcala as a prized edible mushroom. An additional nine species are reported from Mexico, of which eight are new records for the country: H. aanenii , H. eburneum , H. excedens , H. ingratum , H. neurophyllum , H. sordidulum , H. subaustrale and H. velutipes . First modern descriptions of H. neurophyllum and H. subaustrale , originally described from the USA, are given here.
The present paper is a follow-up to the study of Hebeloma based on Italian collections (Grilli et al. 2020), which was part of an ongoing project on occurrence and distribution of Hebeloma species in Italy. Its main focus is on Italian collections of Hebeloma pusillum and H. subconcolor, two of the taxa not treated there because at the time they had not yet been collected by, or come to the attention of, the first author. The two collections, which are fully described and illustrated, are perfectly congruent with the current morphological and molecular delimitation of the related species. Secondarily it provides also a nomenclatural and taxonomic updating following the recent publication of papers on North American Hebeloma species published by C.H. Peck and W.A. Murrill that had a nomenclatural impact on some European species names, as well as an update on the number of current Hebeloma species worldwide. Riassunto Il presente lavoro fa seguito allo studio sul genere Hebeloma basato su raccolte italiane (Grilli et al. 2020), che era parte di uno progetto tuttora in corso sulla presenza e distribuzione delle specie appartenenti a questo genere in Italia. L'attenzione principale del lavoro è concentrata su raccolte italiane di Hebeloma pusillum e H. subconcolor, due dei taxa non presentati in quella occasione perché al tempo non erano stati raccolti dal primo autore, né erano ancora stati sottoposti alla sua attenzione. Le due raccolte, esaurientemente descritte ed illustrate, sono perfettamente corrispondenti alla corrente delimitazione morfologica e molecolare delle due specie. Secondariamente, si provvede ad aggiornamenti di nomenclatura e tassonomici conseguenti alla recente pubblicazione di studi sulle specie nordamericane di Hebeloma pubblicate da C.H. Peck and W.A. Murrill che antidatano i nomi di alcune specie europee. Si propone altresì un aggiornamento del numero delle specie correnti presenti in Europa ed a livello mondiale.
The present paper is a follow-up to the study of Hebeloma based on Italian collections (Grilli et al. 2020), which was part of an ongoing project on occurrence and distribution of Hebeloma species in Italy. Its main focus is on Italian collections of Hebeloma pusillum and H. subconcolor, two of the taxa not treated there because at the time they had not yet been collected by, or come to the attention of, the first author. The two collections, which are fully described and illustrated, are perfectly congruent with the current morphological and molecular delimitation of the related species. Secondarily it provides also a nomenclatural and taxonomic updating following the recent publication of papers on North American Hebeloma species published by C.H. Peck and W.A. Murrill that had a nomenclatural impact on some European species names, as well as an update on the number of current Hebeloma species worldwide. Riassunto Il presente lavoro fa seguito allo studio sul genere Hebeloma basato su raccolte italiane (Grilli et al. 2020), che era parte di uno progetto tuttora in corso sulla presenza e distribuzione delle specie appartenenti a questo genere in Italia. L'attenzione principale del lavoro è concentrata su raccolte italiane di Hebeloma pusillum e H. subconcolor, due dei taxa non presentati in quella occasione perché al tempo non erano stati raccolti dal primo autore, né erano ancora stati sottoposti alla sua attenzione. Le due raccolte, esaurientemente descritte ed illustrate, sono perfettamente corrispondenti alla corrente delimitazione morfologica e molecolare delle due specie. Secondariamente, si provvede ad aggiornamenti di nomenclatura e tassonomici conseguenti alla recente pubblicazione di studi sulle specie nordamericane di Hebeloma pubblicate da C.H. Peck and W.A. Murrill che antidatano i nomi di alcune specie europee. Si propone altresì un aggiornamento del numero delle specie correnti presenti in Europa ed a livello mondiale.
The alteration of forests due to anthropogenic activities and natural phenomena has led to the development of adaptive features so that organisms can tolerate it or use it to their benefit. In this study, saprotrophic fungi from a disturbed Juniperus deppeana forest were isolated and identified for in vitro propagation. Thirty-one specimens were collected and propagated on malt extract agar (EMA), potato dextrose agar (PDA), Kraft lignin agar (A-L) and mineral medium (MM). Taxonomic identification was performed on the basis of macro- and micromorphological characters of the basidiomata, and was complemented by phylogenetic analysis of ITS sequences. Only 7 strains grew under in vitro conditions; they grew best in EMA and PDA media. Room temperature (~22 °C) and preservation at 4 °C were the best conditions to maintain the viability of the strains. After 6 months, strains preserved in glycerol (15%) at 4° and -20 °C were not viable. The isolated fungi belong to the genera Agrocybe, Byssomerulius, Coniophora and Gymnopus. Given the environmental conditions where the strains were isolated, they represent new research prospects for obtaining biomolecules of biotechnological interest.
During the 1970s and 1980s, L. R. Hesler and A. H. Smith, alone, together, or Smith with other authors such as V. S. Evenson and D. H. Mitchel, described numerous North American taxa in Hebeloma. With the inclusion of an early work by Smith and a later work by E. Grilli, who described a species based on material from Smith, 130 taxa were described and form the subject of this paper. Apart from two taxa that were (deliberately) invalidly published and two that were illegitimately published, all others are valid and legitimate names. After study of morphology, habitat, and location of collection (based on available material and information) as well as molecular analysis (insofar as this was successful), of these 128 validly published taxa we regard 14 as being current names; the remaining 114 are synonymized with other current names. These 14 species are Hebeloma albomarginatum, H. alpinicola, H. angelesiense, H. caulocystidiosum, H. immutabile, H. incarnatulum, H. kelloggense, H. mackinawense, H. nitidum, H. olympianum, H. parcivelum, H. praeolidum, H. pungens, and H. sporadicum. This brings up the number of currently recognized, validly published, Hebeloma species in America to 72.
We here announce the launch of the website https://hebeloma.org .
