Conservation status of selected species of non-lichenised agarics, boletes and russuloid fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021

Full text

Conservation status of selected species
of non-lichenised agarics, boletes and
russuloid fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand,
2021
Jerry A. Cooper, Peter K. Buchanan, Pat Leonard, Lois Allison-Cooper, Peter Johnston,
Mahajabeen Padamsee, Eric McKenzie and Pascale Michel
NEWZEALAND THREAT CLASSIFICATION SERIES 38
2022

Cover: Lactarius novae-zelandiae, At Risk – Naturally Uncommon in Keith George Memorial Park, Upper Hutt. Photo: Jerry Cooper
NewZealand Threat Classification Series is a scientific monograph series presenting publications related to the NewZealand Threat
Classification System (NZTCS). Most will be lists providing the NZTCS status of members of a group (e.g. algae, birds, spiders, fungi).
Therearecurrently 23 groups, each assessed once every 5 years. From time to time the manual that defines the categories, criteria
andprocessfor the NZTCS will be reviewed. Publications in this series are considered part of the formal international scientific literature.
This report is available from the departmental website in pdf form. Titles are listed in our catalogue on the website, referwww.doc.govt.nz
underPublications.
The NZTCS database can be accessed at nztcs.org.nz. For all enquiries, email threatstatus@doc.govt.nz.
© Copyright October 2022, New Zealand Department of Conservation
ISSN 2324-1713 (web PDF)
ISBN 978-1-99-116195-6 (web PDF)
This report was prepared for publication by Te Rōpū Ratonga Auaha, Te Papa Atawhai / Creative Services, Department of Conservation; editing
by Amanda Todd and layout by Holly Slade. Publication was approved by the Director, Terrestrial Ecosystem Unit, Department of Conservation,
Wellington, New Zealand.
Published by Department of Conservation Te Papa Atawhai, PO Box 10420, Wellington 6143, New Zealand.
In the interest of forest conservation, we support paperless electronic publishing.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. In essence, you are free to copy, distribute and adapt the work, as long
asyou attribute the work to the Crown and abide by the other licence terms. To view a copy of this licence, visit www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Please note that no departmental or governmental emblem, logo or Coat of Arms may be used in any way that infringes any provision of the Flags, Emblems,
andNames Protection Act 1981. Use the wording ‘Department of Conservation’ in your attribution, not the Department of Conservation logo.
If you publish, distribute or otherwise disseminate this work (or any part of it) without adapting it, the following attribution statement should be used:
‘Source: NZTCS and licensed by the Department of Conservation for reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence’.
If you adapt this work in any way, or include it in a collection, and publish, distribute or otherwise disseminate that adaptation or collection, the following
attributionstatement should be used: ‘This work is based on / includes NZTCS content that is licensed by the Department of Conservation for reuse under
theCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence’.

CONTENTS
Abstract 1
1. Background 2
2. Methodology for assessing the conservation status of fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand 3
2.1 Key issues for assessing fungal conservation status 5
2.1.1 Rarity 5
2.1.2 Identification issues 5
2.1.3 Aggregating occurrence data 7
2.1.4 Estimating population metrics 7
2.2 Adaptation of the IUCN process within the context of theNZTCS for fungi 8
2.3 IUCN assessment criteria for assessing fungal conservation status 8
2.4 Key terms used by the IUCN in relation to the assessment of fungal populations 9
2.5 IUCN extent of occurrence (EOO) and area of occupancy(AOO) 11
3. Summary 12
3.1 Change to the list of taxa 12
3.2 Trends 17
3.3 Assessments of the principal threatened taxa 19
4. Conservation status of 961 taxa of non-lichenised mushroom-like agarics,
boletes and russuloid fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand 23
4.1 Assessments 23
4.2 NZTCS qualifiers, categories and criteria used in this assessment 44
4.2.1 Qualifiers 44
4.2.2 Categories and criteria 44
5. Acknowledgements 46
6. References 46
7. Glossary of terms as applied to fungi in this publication 47
Appendix 1
A rapid assessment methodology 48

1
New Zealand Threat Classification Series 38
Conservation status of selected species of
non-lichenised agarics, boletes and russuloid
fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021
Jerry A. Cooper*, Peter K. Buchanan, Pat Leonard, Lois Allison-Cooper,
PeterJohnston, Mahajabeen Padamsee, Eric McKenzie and Pascale Michel
 Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research, PO Box 69040, Lincoln 7640, New Zealand
 Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research, Private Bag 92170, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
 Motueka, New Zealand
 Operations Group, Department of Conservation, PO Box 10, Ohakune 4660, New Zealand
 Biodiversity Group, Department of Conservation, PO Box 10420, Wellington 6143,
New Zealand
* Corresponding author; email: cooperj@landcareresearch.co.nz
Abstract
The conservation status of 961 species of non-lichenised mushroom-like agarics, boletes
and russuloid fungi found in the wild in Aotearoa New Zealand was assessed using the
New Zealand Threat Classification System (NZTCS). A general process for assessing the
threat of extinction of fungal taxa is described, and a list of selected taxa is presented,
along with a statistical summary and brief notes on the most important changes since the
last assessment in 2002. These assessments replace all previous NZTCS assessments for
non-lichenised mushroom-like taxa in the groups considered. A total of 44 taxa are assessed as
being Threatened, 3 as At Risk, 330 as Not Threatened, and 19 as Introduced and Naturalised,
while565 taxa are considered Data Deficient (i.e. there is insucient information available
to assess their conservation status). Of the 961 selected taxa of agarics, boletes and russuloid
fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 160 (17%) have not been formally described and named but
have been assigned tag names.
Keywords: Agaricaceae, Agaricales, Boletales, Cortinariaceae, Entolomataceae,
Hygrophoraceae, mushroom, Mycenaceae, Russulales
© Copyright October 2022, Department of Conservation. This paper may be cited as: Cooper, J.A.; Buchanan, P.K.;
Leonard, P.; Allison-Cooper, L.; Johnston, P.; Padamsee, M.; McKenzie, E.; Michel, P. 2022: Conservation status of
selected species of non-lichenised agarics, boletes and russuloid fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021. New Zealand
Threat Classification Series 38. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 50 p.

2Cooper et al. 2022 – Conservation status of non-lichenised fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021
1. Background
The New Zealand Threat Classification System (NZTCS) was established in 2002 to
complement the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List system.1
Categories and criteria were defined to reflect the unique environments of Aotearoa
New Zealand, while accounting for the country’s relatively small size and diversity of
ecosystems, and the large number of taxa with naturally restricted ranges and/or small
population sizes (Molloy et al. 2002). The NZTCS methodology was refined in 2007 to ensure
that all possible combinations of status and trend were covered within the dierent categories,
and the resulting manual (Townsend et al. 2008) was used as the basis for the assessments
presented here. However, the protocols recommended by the IUCN/NZTCS were developed
forassessing animal and plant populations, and are not consistently directly applicable to
fungal populations.
The IUCN recently adopted a modified protocol that had been specifically designed
for assessing fungal populations (Dahlberg & Mueller 2011). In 2019, Jerry Cooper,
PeterBuchanan and Pat Leonard were part of a team that used this new protocol to assess the
conservationstatus of several Australasian fungi for the IUCN Red List. Here, we introduce
that fungal assessment protocol and its adoption within the 2008 NZTCS framework
(Townsend et al. 2008). Because of the large number of fungal taxa present in Aotearoa
New Zealand and the limitedavailability of expertise, the panel also adopted a preliminary
selection mechanism to reduce the number of candidate taxa taken forward into the
IUCN/NZTCS detailed assessmentprocess.
There has been only one broad assessment of the conservation status of fungi in
AotearoaNew Zealand to date (Hitchmough 2002), which was based largely on data held in
the New Zealand Fungarium (PDD2) and the panel’s interpretation of the NZTCS protocol
asit applied to fungal populations (Molloy et al. 2002). Revisions were subsequently made to
some of the species listed as Data Deficient (Johnston et al. 2010; Johnston & Cooper 2012).
Lichenised and lichenicolous fungi have been assessed separately (de Lange et al. 2018),
and reassessments of all non-lichenised/lichenicolous fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand were
initiated in 2017, the results of which will be published progressively. This report summarises
the results of the reassessment of 961 taxa of non-lichenised mushroom-like agarics, boletes
and russuloid fungi. Related taxa that are lichenised or have non-agaricoid forms, such as
pualls, crust fungi, club fungi and trues, were excluded from this assessment but will
be considered in future assessments, while several more conspicuous pouch-like fungi
wereincluded.
Taxa were assessed using the categories, criteria and qualifiers defined in the NZTCS
manual(Townsend et al. 2008) and the supplement to that manual (Rolfe et al. 2021), while
adopting the fungal-specific definitions developed for the IUCN (Dahlberg & Mueller 2011).
The expert panel for this assessment of mushroom-like fungi consisted of eight members
plusone administration/support member. However, the assessment was primarily carried
outby Jerry Cooper with support from Peter Buchanan and Pat Leonard.
 www.iucnredlist.org/
 https://scd.landcareresearch.co.nz/Search?collectionId=PDD

3
New Zealand Threat Classification Series 38
2. Methodology for assessing the
conservation status of fungi in Aotearoa
New Zealand
To determine the risk of extinction for fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, it is necessary to
assess and quantify past, current and future threats to populations. As for other groups of
organisms, the principal threats to fungi are associated with the loss of habitat and a decrease
in habitat quality due to land-use change, the impact of invasive species, and climate change.
However, specific threats to fungal organisms are relatively dicult to assess and often
poorlyunderstood.
As heterotrophs, fungi are intimately linked to other organisms. These linkages include
symbiotic, commensal, parasitic and pathogenic relationships, with fungi occurring in plant
roots as mycorrhizae, inside host plants as endophytes and as pathogens.3 Consequently,
anything that negatively aects a population of organisms is a de facto threat to any associated
fungi. For example, Aotearoa New Zealand has many endemic mycorrhizal fungi associated
with native Nothofagaceae and Myrtaceae (Kunzea and Leptospermum spp.), and the latter
group is under threat from myrtle rust (Austropuccinia pisidii). However, many fungus–plant
interactions remain poorly understood, making it dicult to accurately assess risks.
There are also instances where an organism is not considered to be under threat even though
the associated fungi are threatened. And the association between fungi and associated
organisms can be aected by external influences – for example, it is well known that increased
nitrogen availability (such as that associated with dairy farming run-o) negatively aects
ectomycorrhizal fungi.
The spores of many fungi are dispersed by wind, but this is not universal and a loss of or
change in specific dispersal mechanisms may also pose a threat to some fungi. For example,
Aotearoa New Zealand has an unusually high number of endemic true-like species,
particularly secotioid (pouch) fungi, which cannot disperse spores in the wind and are often
reliant on animal vectors consuming their fruiting bodies (sporocarps). In other countries,
those vectors are mammals, but we are unsure of their identity in Aotearoa New Zealand.
Thereis a belief that ground-dwelling birds (many of which are now extinct) are the vectors, in
which case all trues will be in decline, with many existing populations representing relicts.
Mycorrhizal species in Aotearoa New Zealand
Nearly all land plants form mycorrhizal associations with fungi, and these associations
are critical to the establishment, survival and health of plant populations. The majority of
plants are associated with arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi, which form microscopic,
morphologically rather similar sporocarps in soil with restricted diversity, little host/fungus
specificity and broad distributions. However, taxonomic studies of AM fungi in Aotearoa
New Zealand using modern taxonomic methods have been limited compared with other fungal
groups, so estimates of diversity may change. By contrast, ectomycorrhizal (ECM) fungi are
diverse, forming more specific host–fungus relationships, and have relatively large and more
conspicuous sporocarps, making them generally better known. In Aotearoa New Zealand,
beech (Fuscospora spp. and Lophozonia menziesii) and tea-tree (Leptospermum scoparium
and Kunzea spp.) are the only indigenous ectomycorrhizal trees. They are critically dependent
on their association with over 450 described mushroom species, and that is less than half the
estimated total number of ECM fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand.
 For definitions of technical terms used in this report, see the Glossary in section 7.

4Cooper et al. 2022 – Conservation status of non-lichenised fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021
And while introduced pest mammals may now be playing a role in the dispersal of these fungi,
the perceived patchy occurrence of many true-like fungi suggests that this is not significant.
More research is needed on the dispersal mechanisms of native true-like fungi, as any
inability to disperse will aect estimates of the current fragmentation of populations.
Invasive fungi may also have a significant role in the reduction of fungal diversity and pose
threats to indigenous species. In recent decades, the introduced fungus Amanita muscaria
has broadened its ectomycorrhizal (ECM) association with introduced host trees and is
now associated with native beech species. In less than three decades, it has spread across
the country and is now found in nearly every beech forest, where it continues to increase
in abundance. We have little information on the impact of this continued expansion on
populations of native ECM species. Similarly, the bright orange introduced saprophytic
wood-decay fungus Favolaschia claudopus has swept across the country in a few years
and once again we have no data on the potential exclusion of native saprophytic species
occupyingthe same niche.
Fungal species are also often restricted to specific ecosystems and habitats. Sometimes those
restrictions are due to habitat-specific plant/animal associations, but they can also be related
to the physical parameters of the ecosystem (e.g. sand dunes and wetlands). Therefore, it is
possible to assess threats to those fungal species based on a knowledge of changes to the
associated ecosystems and habitats.
Climate change will have both direct and indirect impacts on fungal populations.
Fungiassociated with alpine habitats have a limited capacity to migrate to higher
elevations, and sea-level rise may ultimately impact on some coastal species, especially
those associated with sand dunes and lagoon systems. Most significant climate change
impacts are likely to beindirect as a result of increased climate instability and the eects
onassociated indigenousand alien plant and animal species. Such eects are likely to
remainunquantifiedfor the foreseeable future.
In assessing threats to fungi, it is critical to have demographic information on the distribution,
status and change of associated organisms, ecosystems and land use/cover. Sometimes
we have reliable, nationally comprehensive or usefully specific data covering the relevant
assessment period of the last 50 years. However, often we do not have good data, or it is
problematic to objectively compare data from dierent time periods.
The collection, review and assessment of information relevant to assessing fungal conservation
status requires a breadth of expertise that is currently very limited. It has been suggested
that‘conservation mycology’ should be recognised as a distinct discipline (Mayet al. 2019),
andonly greater expertise in, and resources for, this discipline will result inimproved fungal
threat assessments.

5
New Zealand Threat Classification Series 38
2.1 Key issues for assessing fungal conservation status
2.1.1 Rarity
Rare species are not always at risk of extinction, although if a fungus is reliably known to occur
in a single small area then any impact on that area could lead to extinction. In assessing fungi,
there is a temptation to focus on these rare species, perhaps because other threat processes for
more common species are often quite dicult to quantify. This focus is apparent in previous
threat lists for fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand.
Declaring a fungus to be rare is associated with a considerable degree of uncertainty.
Theperception of rarity, based on known occurrences, may often reflect a lack of surveying
eort by appropriately skilled individuals, the sporadic occurrence of sporocarps and/or
taxonomic uncertainty. The term ‘rare’ is perhaps most confidently applied to those fungal
species with few records that are very conspicuous, are easily identified by non-specialists and
occur in areas where lots of people visit. Use of the term ‘rare’ for any other category of fungus
requires significant evidence and justification.
2.1.2 Identification issues
Substantial eort over two centuries has allowed most of the plant species in Aotearoa
New Zealand to be described. However, there has not been a commensurate degree of eort
to describe our fungi due to the relatively small number of professional resident mycologists,
especially those studying the larger fungi. This problem is compounded by the sporadic and
ephemeral nature of most sporocarps, the absence of which does not preclude the unseen
presence of the feeding stage of the fungus, which potentially grows year-round in association
with its host or within soil, plant, animal or fungal substrates. This means that the right person
needs to be in the right place at the right time to record the occurrence of fungi as sporocarps.
Consequently, relatively few of our fungal species have been described and the information
available for identification is very incomplete, although future analyses of environmental
DNAwill help supplement our earlier dependency on visual sporocarp records.
Numbers of fungal species in Aotearoa New Zealand
A conservative and widely used estimate indicates that there are six fungal species for
every vascular plant species. The vascular plants in Aotearoa New Zealand are relatively
well known, with approximately 2200 indigenous species having been described. We can
therefore estimate that there are at least 13 000 species of indigenous fungi. There are also
approximately 2500 introduced and naturalised plants in Aotearoa New Zealand, many
of which will be associated with specific introduced fungi, and there are many thousands
more introduced plants in cultivation that may harbour yet more fungi. Therefore, while
we have not estimated the total number of introduced fungi associated with introduced
plants, it will be significant. To date, approximately 6000 native fungal species have been
described and around 2000 fungi that were clearly introduced have been catalogued.
Thesefigures indicate that we have described less than half of our indigenous fungi, and
that is likely to be a significant underestimate. Many of these undescribed fungi will be small,
inconspicuousforms.
Approximately 2000 species of larger fungi (mainly basidiomycetes – agarics, brackets,
etc.) have been described in Aotearoa New Zealand. DNA data from environmental samples
together with sequence ‘barcode’ data on known species support the estimate that less
than half of these species have been described, even though this group is conspicuous. The
task of formally describing these species will be significant, and some of them will probably
be under threat although most must remain Data Deficient. We have allocated ‘tag names’
(phrase names) to many of these species.

6Cooper et al. 2022 – Conservation status of non-lichenised fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021
Many fungal species described by early taxonomists, and even up to the 1980s, have been
poorly defined, with many of the descriptions (often based on single collections) failing to
provide the information necessary to accurately identify the named species. In addition,
the type collections of those species are often in poor condition and do not yield additional
critical data, especially definitive sequence data. Fungal species are notoriously variable in
morphology, and the boundaries between inter- and intraspecific variation can sometimes
be dicult to infer. This incomplete knowledge means that many historical records of fungi
have unreliable identifications that may never be improved – and it is not possible to reliably
assessthe conservation status of species where identifications are uncertain.
Modern sequence-based techniques and large-scale observations, especially those
generated by the Fungal Network of New Zealand (FUNNZ)4 and iNaturalist5 citizen
science communities, are rapidly changing our understanding of macrofungi in Aotearoa
New Zealand. Modern sequence-based techniques now allow us to more accurately determine
taxon boundaries based on phylogenetic species concepts, and to correlate these concepts
with reliable, stable morphological characters, known distributions, host associations and
ecological niches. The data obtained support the assertion that many of the fungal species in
Aotearoa New Zealand remain undescribed, including a substantial number of easily observed
and potentially threatened taxa. However, while it is now easier to detect undescribed species
using sequence data, our ability to name these species and provide non-technical aids to species
identification will continue to lag behind that of our botanical colleagues with current resources.
Nevertheless, the taxonomic uncertainty around some described taxa is being reduced.
For other fungal taxa, the uncertainty and diculty in correct identification continues to
increase. Careful microscopy is often required to observe stable morphological characters,
so that identification based on field characters alone is inadequate. In many cases, accurate
identification requires access to a good microscope and extensive technical literature and
expertise, as well as accurate field data on appearance, substrates and habitat – but sometimes
it is simply not possible to distinguish species without sequence data. Sequence data
also frequently demonstrate the presence of cryptic species hiding under a single species
name due to relatively recent regional evolutionary radiations or convergent evolution.
Indeed, convergent evolution has led to some quite unrelated taxa showing identical
macromorphological features – for example, the well-known purple-pouch species Cortinarius
porphyroideus sensu lato is now known to represent at least five dierent cryptic species
with often overlapping distributions (Nilsen et al. 2020). In addition, up until recently, it was
common practice to apply the names of species described from the northern hemisphere to
superficially similar indigenous species, but sequence data usually demonstrate that these
names have been misapplied. Most of the indigenous fungal species considered in this report
are geographically restricted within Australasia, with few being shared with South America
orAsia and hardly any being shared with the northern hemisphere.
Our overall understanding of the taxonomy, distribution, ecology and population dynamics
of most fungal species remains relatively poor. Threat listing is most reliably applied to
distinctive macrofungi, as non-specialists are more likely to observe and correctly report these
species, giving us a high degree of confidence in the occurrence data. Most other taxa will
remain Data Deficient in the near term.
 www.funnz.org.nz/
 https://inaturalist.nz/

7
New Zealand Threat Classification Series 38
2.1.3 Aggregating occurrence data
The threat listing process starts with current knowledge of the distribution of fungal taxa
in Aotearoa New Zealand. For many years, the only accessible source of such data was the
named specimens deposited in fungaria such as PDD and, over wider regions, the information
provided by data aggregators such as the Atlas of Living Australia (ALA)6 and the Global
Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF).7 The data available from PDD specimens has been
enriched in the last 20 years by the annual FUNNZ fungal foray, which has been based in many
dierent areas across Aotearoa New Zealand. The foray attracts between 40 and 60 people
over a 1-week period who visit many sites. In recent years, this has been supplemented by an
explosion in citizen science observation data of macrofungi provided by iNaturalist. Records
in iNaturalist that reach Research Grade have been confirmed by two or more people and have
a reasonable level of quality. For some taxa, the quality of these data exceeds that of fungarium
material where the resources are unavailable to provide confirmation by appropriate experts.
It is important to note that all these sources of occurrence data are highly biased both
taxonomically towards distinctive taxa and geographically towards areas with easy
accessibility. Therefore, assessments need to take these biases into account when estimating
population metrics.
It should also be noted that any collecting of fungal material needs to be carried out with
documented proof of permission from the landowner or, in the case of land administered by
DOC, iwi and local authorities, with a collecting permit.
2.1.4 Estimating population metrics
The formal threat listing process requires pragmatic definitions of populations, individuals
and lifespan. Precise definitions of these concepts are especially hard to achieve for fungi
due to their cryptic lifestyle and occurrence as filamentous threads (hyphae) or yeasts in the
soil, in dead organic matter, on roots and inside living material. Generally, we only become
aware of the presence of these species when they produce sporocarps, and most of our
knowledge comes from records of these sporocarps, which are often short lived and have a
patchy, inconsistent appearance that is linked to environmental conditions. The dynamics of
fungal populations are poorly understood because of this cryptic lifestyle and the uncertain
knowledge of the lifespan and spatial extent of genetic individuals.
There can be no doubt that our understanding of and ability to assess population dynamics
will continue to improve with the increasing development of cheap, easy and reliable molecular
methods to directly assay fungal tissue in situ. In particular, the promise of large-scale
environmental DNA/RNA surveying will potentially provide a means of assessing ecosystem
status and change based on all components of the biodiversity rather than just a few easily
observed groups that represent a fraction of total biodiversity. It is time that we moved on
from using the common phrase ‘flora and fauna’ to indicating all relevant biodiversity so that
the many species of fungi and bacteria that provide fundamentally critical roles in ecosystem
functioning and may be independently at risk of extinction are included.
 www.ala.org.au/
 www.gbif.org/

8Cooper et al. 2022 – Conservation status of non-lichenised fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021
2.2 Adaptation of the IUCN process within the context of
theNZTCS for fungi
The NZTCS guidelines used in this assessment (Townsend et al. 2008) did not include any
specific recommendations for assessing fungal conservation status, yet it is important that
we find ways to directly assess the status of fungi ahead of new techniques and knowledge
becoming available. The pragmatic approach adopted by the IUCN (Dahlberg & Mueller
2011) allows us to calculate metrics for fungal individuals and populations based on a
standardised approach to data that are readily available on the occurrence of sporocarps.
Whilewe acknowledge that the approximations used are subject to considerable uncertainty
and unquantified variance, this assessment methodology, as described below, forms an integral
partof the revised version of the NZTCS manual (Rolfe et al. in press).
Therefore, in the present assessment of fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, we have adopted the
proposed (Dahlberg & Mueller 2011) pragmatic definitions for population size, sub-populations,
and mature individuals, which should be applicable under both the IUCN and NZTCS
processes. Once these metrics are fixed, the assessment criteria and classification categories
adopted by the IUCN and NZTCS are broadly similar, although minor dierences exist for
most assignments. One significant dierence is the IUCN category of Near Threatened,
whichthe NZTCS recognises as At Risk with the useful categories of Declining, Recovering,
Relict and Naturally Uncommon.
The NZTCS process is based primarily on a knowledge of the total population size.
Wherethepopulation size is not known with any certainty, as is the case for fungal
populations, the NZTCS permits classification using secondary criteria of the number
of sub-populations and the size of the largest sub-population, or the area of occupancy
(asasurrogate for total population size). This approach has been adopted for lichenised
fungi(de Lange et al. 2018). However, the definition of area of occupancy under the
NZTCSdiers from that under the IUCN, as noted in section 2.5 below.
A critical consideration under both the IUCN and NZTCS is the inclusion of potential
undiscovered sites in the estimates of area of occupancy and population size.
2.3 IUCN assessment criteria for assessing fungal
conservationstatus
The key questions that allow us to estimate the threat of extinction are:
1. Is there enough information to demonstrate a historic and predicted sustained
declineinthe overall population?
2. Can we demonstrate a restricted area of occupancy and sustained change in the
qualityor extent of suitable habitat?
3. Can we demonstrate a small population and decline?
4. Is this genuinely a very rare species that may be subject to extinction through
stochasticevents?
The IUCN has identified five dierent assessment criteria associated with these questions that
may be used to formally assess the conservation status of a taxon. A taxon can be considered
under any of these assessment criteria, and if more than one assessment criterion is applied,
then the highest category is adopted. In practice, the choice of assessment criteria is usually
dictated by the available knowledge of the taxon and its threats. For fungi, assessments
under IUCN criteria C (small population size and decline) and D (very small or restricted
populations) aregenerally facilitated by the available data. Detailed information on the
assessment criteria and categories may be found in the IUCN guide (IUCN 2019) and a
paperdescribing fungal threat listings under the IUCN criteria (Dahlberg & Mueller 2011).

9
New Zealand Threat Classification Series 38
2.4 Key terms used by the IUCN in relation to the assessment of
fungal populations
In this section, we summarise the key terms used in the formal threat assessment process and
their interpretations for fungi (Dahlberg & Mueller 2011).
These interpretations have been developed for fungi with large sporocarps, such as the
mushrooms, bracket fungi and some larger ascomycetes, so the application of key concepts
to microfungi such as rusts, smuts and most ascomycetes remains problematic. Therefore,
candidate taxa in these latter groups should be assessed based on factors such as perceived
rarity and the conservation status of the associated host.
The population is the totality of mature individuals (see below). This may be known, estimated
or inferred. A known population has had all individuals counted, while an estimate is based on
some direct measurement and inferred generally means that a proxy has been used as an indirect
measure. With fungi, we are invariably dealing with inferred measurements of populations.
Sub-populations are recognised as groups within the population that are geographically or
otherwise distinct and between which there is little demographic or genetic exchange, where
‘little exchange’ is typically defined as one successful migrant individual or gamete per year
orless. Genetic exchange for fungi is dependent on fungal spore dispersal, viability, associated
organism proximity and sexual compatibility. We have few data on genetic exchange for fungi
that would allow us to consistently define sub-population limits. Therefore, within Aotearoa
New Zealand, we have assigned a 20-km buer as a pragmatic unit of separation between
sub-populations for all species.
The distribution of sub-populations is an important consideration. Small, isolated sub-
populations (fragmented) have an increased extinction risk because of the limited potential
for even the occasional dispersal of spores between sites within the fungal generation time
(see below). Unless there is more specific information on limitations to the dispersal process,
apopulation is considered severely fragmented if the sub-populations are separated by
500km or more.
Fungi are dispersed via spores, which may be produced by either sexual or asexual processes
and dispersed by various mechanisms. Spores may germinate under the right conditions to
produce growing threads called hyphae. To produce sporocarps (containing sexual spores),
the hyphae of compatible mating types that originated from dierent sexual spores need to
meet and fuse. Fungi generally exist as networks of fungal hyphae compartmentalised into
colonies. A mature colony (composed of compatible mating types) usually produces sexual
spores (within sporocarps) or asexual spores (in structures that are usually less obvious than
sporocarps). Therefore, separate fungal colonies in a sub-population may have arisen through
dierent mechanisms: by physical fragmentation of an existing colony; by dispersal and
growth of asexual propagules; or by dispersal and growth of sexual propagules. Consequently,
dierent fungal colonies may have the same genetic identity (dierent clonal ramets within a
single genet) or may represent dierent genotypes (multiple genets), and may be physically
separate or contiguous.
The unit for threat listing should be the number of reproducing ramets (mature individuals)
within the sub-population, regardless of the number of genets. However, it is usually impossible
to directly determine the number of ramets, the number of genets or even the number of
discrete colonies of sexually compatible hyphae growing cryptically within a substrate.
The term functional individual has been introduced for fungi as a pragmatic correlative unit
of a fungal genet and is based on the distribution of easily observed sporocarps. For terrestrial
fungi, as opposed to lignicolous fungi (on wood), we may conservatively assume that clusters
of sporocarps separated by 10m or more represent two dierent genets. Each of these genets

10 Cooper et al. 2022 – Conservation status of non-lichenised fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021
may be fragmented into several clonal ramets, with the degree of fragmentation (ramets
per genet) depending on the fungal lifestyle (Dahlberg & Mueller 2011). We can provide a
pragmatic estimate of the number of mature individuals (ramets) in a sub-population from
observations of the distribution of sporocarps and the lifestyle of the fungus (Table 1). In
practice, the distribution of sporocarps within a sub-population is rarely explicitly recorded
and the advice of those familiar with the taxon should be sought. Where possible there should
be surveys and ongoing monitoring of sub-populations associated with taxa identified as
potentially at risk.
Table 1. Definition of mature individual for fungi with different lifestyles.
NO. MATURE INDIVIDUALS = NO. GENETS × NO. RAMETS PER GENET
LIFESTYLE FUNCTIONAL INDIVIDUAL
(NO.GENETS) DEFINITION LIKELY NO. RAMETS PER GENET
Terrestrial fungi A distance of 10 m (2–)10
Lignicolous fungi Each log 2(–10)
Discrete substrata (e.g. dung) Each unit of substratum 1
To derive the totality of mature individuals in the population, we need to sum the mature
individuals across all sub-populations at known sites, but it is also important to consider
potential undiscovered sites. Fungal fruiting bodies are often dicult to detect due to their
sporadic occurrence and usually rapid decay. It is therefore important that we estimate the
potential for the undetected occurrence of the taxon in other suitable areas. An estimate
for the number of undiscovered sites should consider the diculty of observing the taxon,
the diculty of identifying the taxon, the distribution of suitable habitat/environments in
which the taxon might occur, the known life history of the taxon and especially any host-
specific associations, the survey/observation eort, and the expertise of those carrying out
the surveying/observation. Estimating the number of undiscovered sites is associated with
significant potential uncertainty, and expert judgment must be adopted and accepted. Forthe
most recent assessment of lichenised fungi (de Lange et al. 2018), the population metrics
were generally based on known sites, but lichens have long-lived and discrete thalli, and are
relatively well surveyed.
To summarise, we can get some inferred measure of the totality of mature individuals in a
fungal population from:
Population = (No. functional individuals × No. ramets per genet)
× (No. known sites + No. undiscovered sites)
It is important to emphasise, however, that such multiplicative expansion may lead to a
potentially large and unquantified variance.
We also need to estimate changes to the population over a meaningful timescale which, for
the threat-listing process, is generally taken as three generation times. The generation time
is generally defined as the average age of the parents of the current cohort and provides a
measure of the turnover rate of the population. Once again, however, this cannot be applied
to fungi, so we instead use some estimate of the persistence of a fungal colony at a locality to
achieve the same purpose. Persistence as a proxy for generation time is not ideal because we
also have few data on the persistence of fungal colonies. It has been proposed that 20–50 years
is an appropriate measure of persistence (three generation times), but this may be changed
where more direct knowledge is available. We recommend that fungi known to be associated
with ephemeral substrates and habitats are assigned a significantly shorter persistence than
those with more stable lifestyles and habitats (e.g. beech forest mycorrhizal fungi).

11
New Zealand Threat Classification Series 38
The number of locations is often used as an important criterion in threat listing. Within the
IUCN process, the term ‘location’ has a specific meaning that diers from common usage,
being defined as the area in which one or more sub-populations may occur where a single
event or single causative process might threaten the taxon. One example of this is the local
impact of an invasive species.
2.5 IUCN extent of occurrence (EOO) and area of
occupancy(AOO)
Measurements of the EOO and AOO are used under IUCN Criterion B (geographic range
in the form of either B1(EOO) and/or B2 (AOO); IUCN 2012). The IUCN EOO is defined as
the area contained within the shortest boundary that can be drawn around all the known and
inferred (undiscovered) sites of the current occurrence. EOO is not a measure of the taxon
range because it does not consider the fraction of viable habitat within the boundary, although
it should exclude significant oceanic gaps – for example, a single EOO boundary would not
include Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand if the taxon occurs in both countries. By contrast,
the IUCN AOO represents the area of suitable habitat currently occupied (or inferred to be
occupied) by the taxon. To ensure consistency across organism groups, this is defined as
the total number of 2×2km grid cells with suitable habitat across the taxon’s distribution.
Consequently, estimates of AOO require appropriately scaled habitat maps. Online tools are
available to estimate EOO and AOO but do not generally accurately estimate habitat extent.
Area of occupancy is also used within the NZTCS but diers in definition, being taken as the
total area of suitable habitat occupied by the taxon, without scaling.

12 Cooper et al. 2022 – Conservation status of non-lichenised fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021
3. Summary
This report presents the conservation status of 961 taxa of non-lichenised mushroom-like
agarics, boletes and russuloid fungi that are found in the wild in Aotearoa New Zealand.
The formal threat assessment protocol outlined in the sections above is labour intensive
when applied to categories of fungi with very large numbers of species. Therefore, a triage
methodology was developed to rapidly assess candidate taxa for more detailed assessment
(see Appendix 1).
The expert panel also recommended additional taxa for detailed assessment that were not
identified as candidate taxa through the triage process. Ideally, these candidate taxa should
have been subject to a period of surveillance and monitoring to allow their population metrics
to be accurately quantified although, in practice, the resources were usually not available
to carry out this level of scrutiny. Taxa assigned a candidate conservation status through
the initial triage process described in Appendix 1 were then assessed in detail using the
formalassessment process.
3.1 Change to the list of taxa
Hitchmough (2002) listed the conservation status of 424 indigenous taxa of agarics, boletes
and russuloid fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, using the criteria specified by Molloy et al.
(2002). Twenty-nine of these taxa were not assessed in the present report because either
they are absent from Aotearoa New Zealand, their presence is uncertain or their name is
of uncertain taxonomic application (nomen dubium) (Table 2). These taxa have now been
permanently removed from the NZTCS listing. Sixteen taxa of agarics that were assessed in
Hitchmough (2002) are now considered to be conspecific with other species that were also
assessed at that time (Table 3).
Here, we report on a new assessment of 961 taxa using the criteria specified in the current
NZTCS manual (Townsend et al. 2008). This assessment includes 363 out of the 424 taxa of
non-lichenised mushroom-like agarics, boletes and russuloid fungi previously assessed in
Hitchmough (2002). A total of 598 taxa are assessed for the first time. In addition, 104taxa
of agarics and two taxa of russuloid fungi have changed name since the publication of
Hitchmough (2002) (Table 4), and 160 taxa are considered to be taxonomically unresolved
(taxa that either are undescribed or have an uncertain taxonomic status).

13
New Zealand Threat Classification Series 38
Table 2. Taxa that were assessed in Hitchmough (2002) but are now excluded from the New Zealand Threat Classification System listing,
andthe reasons for their removal. Abbreviations: DD = Data Deficient, NC = Nationally Critical.
NAME IN HITCHMOUGH (2002) NAME IN 2021 2002
STATUS
REASONS FOR NOT BEING
ASSESSED IN THIS REPORT
Agarics
Agrocybe howeana DD Presence uncertain
Calvatia candida Calvatia fusca DD Presence uncertain
Collybia vinacea Gymnopus vinaceus DD Nomen dubium (name uncertain)
Coprinus hemerobius Parasola hemerobia DD Nomen dubium (name uncertain)
Cortinarius acutus DD Absent from Aotearoa New Zealand
Cortinarius sinapicolor DD Absent from Aotearoa New Zealand
Crinipellis micropilus Marasmius micropilus DD Nomen dubium (name uncertain)
Cystoderma amianthinum DD Absent from Aotearoa New Zealand
Dermocybe aurantiocastanea Cortinarius
“aurantiocastanea”
DD Not validly published
Dermocybe aurata DD Not validly published
Dermocybe cinnabarina Cortinarius cinnabarinus DD Absent from Aotearoa New Zealand
Dermocybe viscida DD Not validly published
Entoloma cephalocystis DD Not validly published
Entoloma psittacinum DD Absent from Aotearoa New Zealand
Gymnopilus hanmerensis Pholiota multicingulata var.
hanmerensis
DD Assessed at species level
Hygrophorus turundus Hygrocybe turunda DD Absent from Aotearoa New Zealand
Inocybe luteobulbosa var. luteobulbosa DD Assessed at species level
Inocybe luteobulbosa var. volvata DD Assessed at species level
Marasmius aurantiobasalis var. aurantiobasalis DD Assessed at species level
Marasmius bellus DD Absent from Aotearoa New Zealand
Mycena hygrophora DD Nomen dubium (name uncertain)
Mycena pura DD Absent from Aotearoa New Zealand
Phaeomycena fusca DD Nomen dubium (name uncertain)
Pluteus spegazzinianus DD Absent from Aotearoa New Zealand
Protoglossum violaceum Cortinarius subviolaceus DD Presence uncertain
Thaxterogaster viola Cortinarius violaceovolvatus
var. viola
DD Assessed at species level
Tricholoma bubalinum DD Nomen dubium (name uncertain)
Tricholoma saponaceum var. squamosum DD Absent from Aotearoa New Zealand
Boletes
Gyroporus castaneus Gyroporus cf. castaneus NC Recorded in error

14 Cooper et al. 2022 – Conservation status of non-lichenised fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021
Table 3. Taxa that were assessed in Hitchmough (2002) but are treated as conspecific with other taxa assessed in the present report.
TAXON IN HITCHMOUGH (2002) CONSPECIFIC TAXON IN THIS REPORT FAMILY
Collybia druceae Rhodocollybia purpurata Omphalotaceae
Cortinarius anauensis Cortinarius marmoratus Cortinariaceae
Entoloma parsonsiae Entoloma translucidum Entolomataceae
Entoloma rubescentipes Entoloma phaeomarginatum Entolomataceae
Entoloma rubromarginatum Entoloma melanocephalum Entolomataceae
Entoloma viridomarginatum var. milfordense Entoloma viridomarginatum Entolomataceae
Flammulaster foliicola Flammulaster pulveraceus Tubariaceae
Hohenbuehelia luteohinnulea Hohenbuehelia luteola Pleurotaceae
Hohenbuehelia podocarpinea Hohenbuehelia brunnea Pleurotaceae
Hypholoma stuppeum Lacrymaria asperospora Psathyrellaceae
Lepiota exstructa Macrolepiota clelandii Agaricaceae
Mycena ochracea Mycena olivaceomarginata Mycenaceae
Mycena subfragillima Mycena olivaceomarginata Mycenaceae
Pleurotopsis roseola Scytinotus longinquus Pleurotaceae
Pleurotopsis subgrisea Scytinotus longinquus Pleurotaceae
Thaxterogaster ohauensis Cortinarius novae-zelandiae ined. Cortinariaceae
Table 4. Name changes affecting taxa of agarics, boletes and russuloid fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand between the publication of
Hitchmough(2002) and the present report.
NAME IN HITCHMOUGH (2002) NAME IN THIS REPORT FAMILY
Agarics
Agaricus bambusae var. australis Agaricus horakianus Agaricaceae
Cheimonophyllum roseum Arrhenia rosea ined. Hygrophoraceae
Calocybe readiae Calocybe carnea Lyophyllaceae
Hygrotrama roseolum Camarophyllopsis roseola Clavariaceae
Clavogaster novozelandicus Clavogaster virescens Strophariaceae
Clitocybe dealbata Clitocybe rivulosa Clitocybaceae
Coprinus colensoi Coprinopsis stercorea Psathyrellaceae
Cortinarius alboserrulatus ined. Cortinarius alboaggregatus Cortinariaceae
Dermocybe alienata Cortinarius alienatus Cortinariaceae
Thaxterogaster anisodorus Cortinarius anisodorus Cortinariaceae
Dermocybe aurantiella Cortinarius aurantiellus Cortinariaceae
Dermocybe cardinalis Cortinarius cardinalis Cortinariaceae
Thaxterogaster cartilagineus Cortinarius cartilagineus Cortinariaceae
Thaxterogaster coneae Cortinarius coneae Cortinariaceae
Dermocybe cramesina Cortinarius cramesinus Cortinariaceae
Gigasperma cryptica Cortinarius crypticus Cortinariaceae
Cuphocybe melliolens Cortinarius dulciolens Cortinariaceae
Dermocybe egmontiana Cortinarius egmontianus Cortinariaceae
Rozites fusipes Cortinarius elacatipus Cortinariaceae
Thaxterogaster epiphaeus Cortinarius epiphaeus Cortinariaceae
Thaxterogaster leoninus Cortinarius flavidulus Cortinariaceae
Dermocybe icterinoides Cortinarius icterinoides Cortinariaceae
Dermocybe indotata Cortinarius indotatus Cortinariaceae
Cortinarius exlavatus Cortinarius ionomataius Cortinariaceae
Dermocybe largofulgens Cortinarius largofulgens Cortinariaceae
Dermocybe leptospermarum Cortinarius leptospermorum Cortinariaceae
Thaxterogaster leucocephalus Cortinarius leucocephalus Cortinariaceae
Continued on next page

15
New Zealand Threat Classification Series 38
NAME IN HITCHMOUGH (2002) NAME IN THIS REPORT FAMILY
Thaxterogaster luteolus Cortinarius luteobrunneus Cortinariaceae
Thaxterogaster nivalis Cortinarius nivalis Cortinariaceae
Austrogaster novae-zelandiae Cortinarius novae-zelandiae ined.Cortinariaceae
Dermocybe olivaceonigra Cortinarius olivaceoniger Cortinariaceae
Dermocybe splendida Cortinarius persplendidus Cortinariaceae
Thaxterogaster pisciodorus Cortinarius pisciodorus Cortinariaceae
Dermocybe purpurata Cortinarius rubripurpuratus Cortinariaceae
Rozites rugosiceps Cortinarius rugosiceps Cortinariaceae
Thaxterogaster carneolus Cortinarius sarcinochrous Cortinariaceae
Cortinarius rotundisporus subsp. nothofagi Cortinarius tessiae Cortinariaceae
Dermocybe vinicolor Cortinarius vinicolor Cortinariaceae
Thaxterogaster violaceovolvatus Cortinarius violaceovolvatus Cortinariaceae
Mycena viscidocruenta Cruentomycena viscidocruenta Mycenaceae
Marasmius exustoides Cryptomarasmius exustoides Physalacriaceae
Marasmius fishii Cryptomarasmius fishii Physalacriaceae
Marasmius micraster Cryptomarasmius micraster Physalacriaceae
Marasmius rhopalostylidis Cryptomarasmius rhopalostylidis Physalacriaceae
Camarophyllus griseorufescens Cuphophyllus griseorufescens Hygrophoraceae
Xerulina asprata Cyptotrama asprata Physalacriaceae
Nivatogastrium baylisianum Deconica baylisiana Strophariaceae
Melanotus citrisporus Deconica citrispora Strophariaceae
Psilocybe novaezelandiae Deconica novae-zelandiae Strophariaceae
Melanotus vorax Deconica vorax Strophariaceae
Entoloma pteridicola Entoloma chloroxanthum Entolomataceae
Eccilia haeusleriana Entoloma haeuslerianum Entolomataceae
Entoloma aromaticum f. minimum Entoloma imbecille Entolomataceae
Entoloma decolorans Entoloma melanocephalum Entolomataceae
Entoloma parsonsiae Entoloma translucidum Entolomataceae
Entoloma perzonatum Entoloma translucidum Entolomataceae
Entoloma caesiomarginatum Entoloma viridomarginatum Entolomataceae
Hygrophorus waikanaensis Gerronema waikanaense Porotheleaceae
Collybia stevensoniae Gymnopus villosipes Omphalotaceae
Heimiomyces neovelutipes Heimiomyces velutipes Agaricales incertae sedis
Hohenbuehelia metuloidea Hohenbuehelia parsonsiae Pleurotaceae
Oudemansiella japonica var. colensoi Hymenopellis colensoi Physalacriaceae
Astrosporina aequalis Inocybe aequalis Inocybaceae
Astrosporina amygdalina Inocybe amygdalina Inocybaceae
Astrosporina graveolens Inocybe graveolens Inocybaceae
Astrosporina avellana Inocybe horakomyces Inocybaceae
Astrosporina leptospermi Inocybe leptospermi Inocybaceae
Astrosporina manukanea Inocybe manukanea Inocybaceae
Astrosporina paracerasphora Inocybe paracerasphora Inocybaceae
Astrosporina straminea Inocybe straminea Inocybaceae
Astrosporina subclavata Inocybe subclavata Inocybaceae
Astrosporina viscata Inocybe viscata Inocybaceae
Inocybe latericia Inosperma latericium Inocybaceae
Stropharia lepiotiformis Lacrymaria asperospora Psathyrellaceae
Rhodocybe antipoda Lepista antipoda Clitocybaceae
Agaricus campigenus Macrolepiota clelandii Agaricaceae
Table 4 continued
Continued on next page

16 Cooper et al. 2022 – Conservation status of non-lichenised fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021
NAME IN HITCHMOUGH (2002) NAME IN THIS REPORT FAMILY
Marasmius podocarpi Marasmius podocarpicola Marasmiaceae
Mycena conicola Mycena filopes Mycenaceae
Insiticia flavovirens Mycena flavovirens Mycenaceae
Mycena leaiana Mycena leaiana var. australis Mycenaceae
Fayodia granulospora Mycena olivaceomarginata Mycenaceae
Crinipellis roseola Mycena stevensoniae Mycenaceae
Mycena pinicola Mycena vinacea Mycenaceae
Marasmius curraniae Mycetinis curraniae Omphalotaceae
Lepiota purpurata Rhodocollybia purpurata Omphalotaceae
Pholiota squarrosoides Pholiota subflammans Strophariaceae
Conocybe gracilenta Pholiotina gracilenta Bolbitiaceae
Conocybe novae-zelandiae Pholiotina novae-zelandiae Bolbitiaceae
Hydropus ardesiacus Pleurella ardesiaca Cyphellaceae
Pouzaromyces minutus Pouzarella minuta Entolomataceae
Stropharia semiglobata Protostropharia semiglobata Strophariaceae
Omphalina foetida Pseudoclitocybe foetida Pseudoclitocybaceae
Inocybe renispora Pseudosperma renisporum Inocybaceae
Stigmatolemma huia Resupinatus huia Pleurotaceae
Marasmiellus violaceogriseus Resupinatus violaceogriseus Pleurotaceae
Clitocybe albida Rhizocybe albida Lyophyllaceae
Marasmius delicatus Rhodocollybia delicata ined. Omphalotaceae
Collybia druceae Rhodocollybia purpurata Omphalotaceae
Melanoleuca vinosa Ripartitella sp. ‘Totaranui’ Agaricales incertae sedis
Panellus crawfordiae Scytinotus longinquus Porotheleaceae
Phaeomarasmius aureosimilis Tubaria aureosimilis Tubariaceae
Phaeomarasmius hispidulus Tubaria hispidula Tubariaceae
Phaeomarasmius lanatulus Tubaria lanatula Tubariaceae
Phaeomarasmius verrucipes Tubaria verrucipes Tubariaceae
Russuloid fungi
Lentinellus marginatus Lentinellus novae-zelandiae Auriscalpiaceae
Russula littoralis Russula littorea Russulaceae
Table 4 continued

17
New Zealand Threat Classification Series 38
3.2 Trends
Of the 961 taxa assessed in this report, 44 (4.6%) are Threatened, 3 (0.3%) are At Risk and
330(34.3%) are Not Threatened (Table 5). New information on 135 taxa previously assessed
as Data Deficient (Hitchmough 2002) was sucient to determine their conservation status
in the present assessment (Tables 6 & 7). Of these, 19 taxa are Threatened, including 1 that is
Nationally Critical; 1 taxon is At Risk; and 97 taxa are Not Threatened. Nineteen species that
were previously believed to be native to Aotearoa New Zealand are now understood to be
exotic and so are reported as Introduced and Naturalised in this assessment.
Nine taxa that were previously assessed as Threatened – Nationally Critical (Hitchmough
2002) have an improved status because of a better understanding of their potential
distributions (Tables 6 & 7). This includes Russula pleurogena, which is Threatened –
Nationally Endangered; Squamanita squarrulosa, which is At Risk – Naturally Uncommon;
Volvariella surrecta, which is Introduced and Naturalised; and Cortinarius cartilagineus,
Chalciporus aurantiacus, Russula papakaiensis, Russula miniata, Russula littorea and Russula
inquinata, which are Not Threatened.
Of the 598 newly listed taxa, 23 (3.8%) are Threatened, 1 (0.2%) is At Risk and 228 (38.1%) are
Not Threatened.
Table 5. Comparison of the status of taxa of agarics, boletes and russuloid fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand listed in 2002 (Hitchmough 2002)
andre-assessed in 2021 (this report).
CATEGORY 2002 2021
AGARICS BOLETES RUSSULOID
FUNGI
TOTAL AGARICS BOLETES RUSSULOID
FUNGI
TOTAL
Data Deficient 396 8 6 410 546 712 565
Threatened –
Nationally Critical
42814 1 1
Threatened –
Nationally Endangered
112
Threatened –
Nationally Vulnerable
30 3 8 41
At Risk – Naturally
Uncommon
2 1 3
Not Threatened 280 16 34 330
Introduced and
Naturalised*
19 19
Total 400 10 14 424 878 27 56 961
* Only taxa that were listed in Hitchmough (2002) and have since been identified as exotic are reported as Introduced and Naturalised in this
assessment; all other exotic taxa of fungi are omitted.

18 Cooper et al. 2022 – Conservation status of non-lichenised fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021
Table 6. Summary of changes to the number of taxa of agarics, boletes and russuloid fungi assigned to each conservation status between
2002 (Hitchmough 2002) and 2021 (this report). A ‘neutral’ change is any movement into or out of Data Deficient.
TYPE OF CHANGE, REASON AND
CONSERVATION STATUS AGARICS BOLETES RUSSULOID
FUNGI TOTAL
BETTER 3159
More knowledge 3159
Nationally Endangered 1 1
Naturally Uncommon 1 1
Not Threatened 1146
Introduced and Naturalised 1 1
NEUTRAL 132 1 6 139
Greater uncertainty 1 3 4
Data Deficient 1 3 4
More knowledge 131 1 3 135
Nationally Critical 1 1
Nationally Vulnerable 16 1 1 18
Naturally Uncommon 1 1
Not Threatened 95 297
Introduced and Naturalised 18 18
NO CHANGE 211 3 1 215
Data Deficient 211 3 1 215
NEW LISTING 532 22 44 598
Data Deficient 334 4 8 346
Nationally Endangered 1 1
Nationally Vulnerable 14 2 7 23
Naturally Uncommon 1 1
Not Threatened 184 15 28 227
TOTAL 878 27 56 961
Table 7. Summary of status changes of taxa of agarics, boletes and russuloid fungi between 2002 (data in rows; Hitchmough 2002) and 2021
(datain columns; this report). Numbers to the right of the diagonal (shaded green) indicate an improved status (e.g.one taxon has moved
fromThreatened – Nationally Critical in 2002 to Threatened – Nationally Endangered in 2021), numbers to the left ofthe diagonal (shaded pink)
indicate a poorer status, numbers on the diagonal (shaded black) have not changed, and numbers without shading are taxa that either have
moved into or out of Data Deficient, have been added to this assessment, or are no longer considered to bedistinct (TI)from other taxa in
thisreport.
CONSERVATION STATUS 2021
Total DD NC NE NV NU NT IN* NA†TI‡
1006 565 1 2 41 3330 19 29 16
CONSERVATION STATUS 2002
Data Deficient (DD) 394 215 118 197 18 28 16
Threatened – Nationally
Critical (NC) 14 4 1 1 6 1 1
Threatened – Nationally
Endangered (NE) 0
Threatened – Nationally
Vulnerable (NV) 0
At Risk – Naturally
Uncommon (NU) 0
Not Threatened (NT) 0
Introduced and
Naturalised (IN) 0
New listing 598 346 0 1 23 1227 0
* Only taxa that were listed in Hitchmough (2002) and have since been identified as exotic are reported as Introduced and Naturalised in this
assessment; all other exotic taxa of fungi are omitted.
† Not Assessed taxa are listed in Table 2.
‡ Taxonomically Indistinct taxa are listed in Table 3.

19
New Zealand Threat Classification Series 38
3.3 Assessments of the principal threatened taxa
Brief definitions of the criteria and qualifiers used in the assessments outlined below are
provided in section 4.2 below, while the qualifier abbreviations are explained in section 4.2.1.
Anthracophyllum pallidum
At Risk – Naturally Uncommon
Qualifiers: DPS, DPT, RR
Anthracophyllum pallidum is a rarely recorded shell-like species of fungus with pinkish
gills that is specifically associated with dead and living attached branches of the coastal
shrub Olearia furfuracea, which has a large and stable population in the northern half of the
NorthIsland of Aotearoa New Zealand. Other similar but common species have occasionally
been misidentified as this species, specifically Campanella spp. and Gymnopus spp. Shell-like
species growing at eye-level on living trees attract attention and are regularly reported.
There are three known sites for this fungus: one close to Auckland, another on a small and
uninhabited island in The Noises group in the Hauraki Gulf, and a third in the Gisborne
region. However, it has not been seen since 1998 despite targeted surveying. Considering
its high detectability and specific host requirements, 50 sites is a reasonable estimate to
account for unknown sites. Each site would be expected to have three functional individuals,
each representing three mature individuals, giving a total population size estimate of
450individuals.
Of the three known sites, the first site has legal protection but occurs in an area that is subject
to kauri die-back, with potential changes to habitat, and is a tourist destination close to the
major centre of Auckland; the second site on a small and uninhabited island in the Hauraki
Gulf appears to be relatively secure; and the third site in the Gisborne region occurs in a small
patch of native bush surrounded by intensive farming. No population decline is currently
known, but monitoring is recommended.
Deconica baylisiana
Threatened – Nationally Critical A(1)
Qualifiers: CI, CR, DPS, DPT, RR, Sp
This species was originally described as Nivatogastrium baylisianum by Egon Horak from
a collection made by Trevor Baylis in the Rock and Pillar Range (900m) in Otago and a
subsequent collection from Mt Rakeahua on Stewart Island/Rakiura, both in 1969.
Deconica baylisiana is a saprophytic secotioid (pouch or true-like) fungus that is endemic
in southern Aotearoa New Zealand. It is the only such species in Aotearoa New Zealand
associated with alpine grassland and is easily seen and recognised due to its bright colour
in open habitat. The species has been sequence barcoded and is phylogenetically well
characterised. True-like species have been extensively surveyed in Aotearoa New Zealand
for over 50 years. They do not have active spore dispersal, instead relying on animal vectors,
and those that are found in forests are presumed to be dispersed by flightless birds like the
extinct moa and threatened kiwi and kākāpō. The identity of the vector for this upland species
is unknown but is likely to be extinct or threatened. In addition, as an alpine species, it is likely
to be negatively impacted by climate change.
This species is known from five records of only a few sporocarps at five sites over an 83-year
period. It should be noted that one of the sites was only recently discovered and post-dates the
current IUCN assessment. Based on this, we infer the presence of five genotypes, which has
been multiplied by 3 to account for unrecorded individuals at the known sites and then 2–5 to
convert this to the number of mature individuals, giving 30–75 mature individuals present at

20 Cooper et al. 2022 – Conservation status of non-lichenised fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021
the known sites. Considering this is a conspicuous fungus found in very specific habitats, a
multiplier of 2 is considered appropriate to account for unknown sites, giving a total estimate
of 60–150 mature individuals. Suitable habitat in alpine southern Aotearoa New Zealand should
be surveyed to assess the validity of the estimate of unknown sites.
Hygrophoropsis umbriceps
Threatened – Nationally Vulnerable
Qualifier: De
Hygrophoropsis umbriceps is an uncommon but rather easily recognised mushroom.
Historically, the name has been incorrectly used for another rather more common but easily
distinguished and undescribed mushroom. Therefore, care is required when interpreting
historical data.
This species is only known from five confirmed records at five sites in the northern half of
Aotearoa New Zealand. Although the species is reasonably easily detected, it has only been
recorded once among 25000 curated iNaturalist postings. Given that it is probably rare but
under-reported, it is estimated that there are no more than 500 sites in total, each with five
colonies representing three mature individuals, giving a total estimated population size of no
more than 7500 mature individuals occurring in two sub-populations.
Hygrophoropis umbriceps grows on soil in scrub containing tea tree (Myrtaceae). The species
is probably ectomycorrhizal, but some species in the genus are known to be able to switch
nutritional modes to saprotrophism. The five known sites are/were all relatively small patches
of native bush surrounded by developed land, and the type locality in the South Island has
been cleared for pasture and one historic site in Auckland has now been developed for housing.
Only one site is on protected land.
Tea tree scrub is currently widespread throughout much of Aotearoa New Zealand, but is in
decline and becoming highly fragmented in some areas due to land transformation to farming
and forestry. The quality of remaining isolated fragments is also decreasing in some areas due
to invasive species coupled with nutrient runo from adjacent intensive farming. In addition,
tea tree species are currently classified as Nationally Vulnerable due to the perceived future
impact of myrtle rust. Consequently, all fungi with a specific association with tea tree are
minimally assessed as Nationally Vulnerable but many are likely under threat independently
ofthe projected consequences of myrtle rust.
Lactarius novae-zelandiae
At Risk – Naturally Uncommon
The macroscopic appearance of this taxon is striking, and the fact that there was a 44-year
gap between the initial records (1968–1971) and subsequent records (2015–2018) suggests it is
uncommon. There has been extensive surveying of the Russulaceae by Ross McNabb in the
1960/70s and by Jerry Cooper and Pat Leonard from 2005 onwards, and there are three known
and extant sub-populations of this species. The single original locality from which the species
was described (Karamea) has been lost due to the conversion of forest habitat to pasture.
The species was originally assessed by the IUCN in 2017 as Endangered under Criterion B.
The geographic range for B2 Area of occupancy (NZ 18km2) met subcriterion (a) Severely
fragmented, with one currently known population at the time near Lower Hutt in the North
Island. It has not been re-collected at the type locality of Karamea in the South Island despite
extensive searching over many years.
Since 2017, two additional locations in Nelson and Buller have been identified and confirmed
from sequence data. These locations significantly change the value of the area of occupancy
(AOO of known sites), making the 2017 IUCN assessment of Endangered no longer

21
New Zealand Threat Classification Series 38
appropriate. The distribution of records suggests some degree of regional restriction, but
as anassociate of beech, the potential distribution of this species remains considerable,
andthereis no reason to suspect population decline. For that reason, the panel re-assessed
thisspecies as Naturally Uncommon.
Macrocystidia reducta
Threatened – Nationally Vulnerable C(1)
Qualifiers: CR, DPS, DPT
Macrocystidia reducta is the only secotioid member of a genus with perhaps just four
currently known species described globally in a monotypic family of currently unresolved
position within the Agaricales. In other words, M. reducta is very distinct in evolutionary
terms. Likeother species of Macrocystidia, the species has a distinct odour of fish oil or
linseed oil. Its sporocarps are typically associated with well-drained (often sloping), bare
soil under dense indigenous bush (dominated by tea tree and podocarps). It is known from
several sites but only within the ecological districts of Banks Peninsula and the Port Hills in
Canterbury. Itis perhaps the best surveyed threat-listed species in Aotearoa New Zealand,
with numerous dedicated search eorts over 18 years in suitable habitats in Canterbury and
nationally. Thesesearches have revealed a related and undescribed species (Macrocystida sp.
‘Pennycook’), but this remains Data Deficient. Like the true Deconica baylisiana, the vector
for spore dispersal is unknown and may be reduced or absent, which will impact on the genetic
diversity within sub-populations.
Each known site is relatively small and estimated to contain up to 10 genets, with five ramets
per genet, corresponding to 50 mature individuals per site. This species is potentially present
at up to 30 sites, including an estimate of undiscovered sites, giving an estimated maximum
size of the known population of 1500 mature individuals.
The remaining podocarp fragments in Aotearoa New Zealand are under threat from
surrounding pastures, which are intensively farmed. The impact of eutrophication through
run-o and invasion by coarse grasses into known sites is also a concern, with the area of
suitable habitat (i.e. ‘bare soil’) within these remnants decreasing.
Russula albolutescens
Threatened – Nationally Vulnerable
Qualifiers: De, DPS, DPT
Russula albolutescens is one of the more recognisable but uncommon species of Russula,
a genus that has been extensively surveyed and studied in Aotearoa New Zealand over a
period of 60 years. This fungus has been recorded 23 times at seven localities, four of which
are in unprotected areas with <30% indigenous cover (indicating past clearance) adjacent to
pasture grassland. The type locality, and centre of most records, is west of Auckland, and the
original location from 1967 is now a built-up area, while another has been cleared of tea tree.
Over the last 5 years, 2500 observers have recorded 54000 observations of fungi in Aotearoa
New Zealand using the iNaturalist platform, 20000 of which have been verified by multiple
experts. This mushroom has been recorded just twice. Despite this increased level of recording,
there is a strong possibility of multiple undiscovered sites. Considering the broad geographic
extent of the host, we estimate a total of 1000 potential sites. Assuming three genets per site
(each representing 10 mature individuals), we estimate a maximum of 30000 mature individuals.
As a strict mycorrhizal associate of tea tree, this species is designated the same conservation
status as the host plant, in a similar way to other associates listed here (e.g. Hygrophoropsis
umbriceps).

22 Cooper et al. 2022 – Conservation status of non-lichenised fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021
Russula pleurogena
Threatened – Nationally Endangered C(1)
Qualifiers: DPS, DPT
Russula pleurogena is a small, brown species that is recognised by its eccentric stem and
habitat but is otherwise rather indistinct and may be overlooked. It is a strict mycorrhizal
associate of tea tree. The genus Russula has been extensively surveyed and studied in Aotearoa
New Zealand over a period of 60 years and this species has not been re-found since the original
collection in 1981.
This fungus has only been recorded once from a single site. Considering that several other
related species are restricted to the northern North Island, it is reasonable to believe that
thisspecies is similarly restricted. We estimate 100 sites, including undiscovered sites,
as a likely maximum. From the lifestyle of this fungus, we infer the presence of three
genotypes per site each representing five mature individuals, giving a maximum estimate
of1500matureindividuals.
Squamanita squarrulosa
At Risk – Naturally Uncommon
Qualifiers: CR, DPS, DPT
The genus Squamanita has a global distribution but none of its species are common anywhere
on Earth. Squamanita species are parasites of other mushrooms, often species of the related
Cystoderma, which are present in many habitat types. Squamanita squarrulosa is an Aotearoa
New Zealand endemic that is known from just two sites, and its host remains unknown.
Thespecies is potentially threatened but dicult to assess with certainty due to the unusual
and uncertain life history and sporadic distribution records of all species in the genus.
Xerocomus griseoolivaceus
Threatened – Nationally Endangered C(1)
Qualifiers: DPS, DPT
Xerocomus griseoolivaceus is known with certainty from only three records, all from the same
locality in the Waitākere Ranges. All known sites are in areas of bush directly adjacent to
pasture farmland.
Considering that several other related species are restricted to the northern North Island,
it is reasonable to believe that this species is similarly restricted. We estimate 100 sites,
including undiscovered sites, as a likely maximum. From the lifestyle of this fungus, we infer
the presence of three genotypes per site each representing five mature individuals, giving a
maximum estimate of 1500 mature individuals.
As a strict mycorrhizal associate of tea tree, this species may be aected by decline in the host
taxa due to myrtle rust.

23
New Zealand Threat Classification Series 38
4. Conservation status of 961 taxa of
non-lichenised mushroom-like agarics,
boletes and russuloid fungi in Aotearoa
New Zealand
4.1 Assessments
Taxa were assessed according to the criteria of Townsend et al. (2008) and have been grouped
in Table 8 by conservation status and then alphabetically by scientific name. Categories are
ordered by degree of loss, with Data Deficient at the top of the list and Not Threatened at the
bottom, above Introduced and Naturalised.
Brief descriptions of the NZTCS categories and criteria are provided in section 4.2. See
Townsend et al. (2008)8 and Rolfe et al. (2021)9 for further details.
The full data for the assessments listed in Table 8 can be viewed and downloaded from the
NZTCS website (https://nztcs.org.nz/reports/1112).
 www.doc.govt.nz/globalassets/documents/science-and-technical/sap244.pdf
 www.doc.govt.nz/globalassets/documents/science-and-technical/nztcs-supplement-2021.pdf
ASSESSMENT NAME FAMILY CRITERIA | QUALIFIERS STATUS CHANGE
DATA DEFICIENT (565)
Taxonomically determinate (417)
Agarics (406)
Aeruginospora furfuracea Hygrophoraceae No change
Agaricus campbellensis Agaricaceae New listing
Agaricus horakii Agaricaceae DPR No change
Agaricus kroneanus Agaricaceae DPR, SO No change
Agaricus lanatoniger Agaricaceae DPR No change
Agaricus oligocystis Agaricaceae OL No change
Agaricus purpureoniger Agaricaceae DPR, OL No change
Agaricus subantarcticus Agaricaceae IE New listing
Agaricus thujae Agaricaceae DPR, SO New listing
Agrocybe olivacea Strophariaceae No change
Amanita karea Amanitaceae New listing
Amanita mumura Amanitaceae New listing
Anastrophella macrospora Physalacriaceae DPR No change
Anthracophyllum glaucophyllum Omphalotaceae DPR No change
Armillaria aotearoa Physalacariaceae New listing
Table 8. Conservation status of 961 taxa of non-lichenised mushroom-like agarics, boletes and russuloid fungi in AotearoaNew Zealand.
Qualifiers are abbreviated as follows: CI = Climate Impact, CR = Conservation Research Needed, De = Designated, DPR = Data Poor
Recognition, DPS = Data Poor Size, DPT = Data Poor Trend, IE = Island Endemic, OL = One Location, RR = Range Restricted, SO = Secure
Overseas, Sp = Sparse.
Designated (De) indicates taxa for which the conservation status has been designated by the panel. This may be due to the current
conservationstatus of the host species. For example, many ectomycorrhizal species associated with mānuka (Leptospermum spp.)
andkānuka(Kunzea spp.) aredesignated Threatened – Nationally Vulnerable because of the potential impact of myrtle rust.
Continued on next page

24 Cooper et al. 2022 – Conservation status of non-lichenised fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021
ASSESSMENT NAME FAMILY CRITERIA | QUALIFIERS STATUS CHANGE
Armillaria hinnulea Physalacariaceae New listing
Arrhenia rosea ined. Hygrophoraceae No change
Calyptella hebe Porotheleaceae OL No change
Camarophyllopsis roseola Clavariaceae No change
Camarophyllus apricosus Hygrophoraceae DPR New listing
Camarophyllus aurantiopallens Hygrophoraceae DPR New listing
Camarophyllus canus Hygrophoraceae DPR No change
Camarophyllus delicatus Hygrophoraceae DPR No change
Camarophyllus impurus Hygrophoraceae DPR No change
Camarophyllus muritaiensis Hygrophoraceae DPR No change
Camarophyllus patinicolor Hygrophoraceae DPR No change
Cantharellula waiporiensis Hygrophoraceae DPR No change
Clitocybe brunneocaperata Clitocybaceae New listing
Clitocybe wellingtonensis Clitocybaceae DPR No change
Clitocybula grisella Porotheleaceae DPR No change
Clitopilus kamaka Emtolomataceae New listing
Collybiopsis rimutaka Omphalotaceae DPR New listing
Conocybe echinata Bolbitiaceae New listing
Conocybe horakii Bolbitiaceae DPR No change
Coprinopsis austrophlyctidospora Psathyrellaceae New listing
Cortinarius aegrotus Cortinariaceae DPR No change
Cortinarius aerugineoconicus Cortinariaceae DPR, DPS No change
Cortinarius amblyonis Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius anisodorus Cortinariaceae DPR No change
Cortinarius araniiti Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius artosus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius atrolazulinus Cortinariaceae No change
Cortinarius atropileatus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius aurantiellus Cortinariaceae DPR No change
Cortinarius basifibrillosus ined. Cortinariaceae DPR New listing
Cortinarius calaisopus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius carneipallidus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius caryotoides Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius castaneiceps Cortinariaceae No change
Cortinarius castaneodiscus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius chlorophyllus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius chrysma Cortinariaceae DPR No change
Cortinarius chrysoconius Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius citribasalis Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius crypticus Cortinariaceae No change
Cortinarius cuphocyboides Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius cuphomorphus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius cycneus Cortinariaceae No change
Cortinarius cypripedii Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius dulcamarus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius dulciolens Cortinariaceae DPR No change
Cortinarius dulciorum Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius durifoliorum Cortinariaceae New listing
Table 8 continued
Continued on next page

25
New Zealand Threat Classification Series 38
ASSESSMENT NAME FAMILY CRITERIA | QUALIFIERS STATUS CHANGE
Cortinarius elacatipus Cortinariaceae No change
Cortinarius elaiochrous Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius elaiops Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius entheosus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius eucollybianus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius eutactus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius exlugubris Cortinariaceae No change
Cortinarius fiordlandensis Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius flavidulus Cortinariaceae No change
Cortinarius gymnocephalus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius hebelomaticus ined. Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius icterinoides Cortinariaceae No change
Cortinarius ignellus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius incensus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius indotatus Cortinariaceae No change
Cortinarius iringa Cortinariaceae DPR New listing
Cortinarius ixomolynus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius juglandaceus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius lachanus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius lamproxanthus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius leptospermorum ined. Cortinariaceae DPR No change
Cortinarius leucocephalus Cortinariaceae DPR No change
Cortinarius luteinus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius luteobrunneus Cortinariaceae DPR No change
Cortinarius marmoratus Cortinariaceae DPR No change
Cortinarius memoria-annae Cortinariaceae SO New listing
Cortinarius mycenarum Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius mysoides Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius myxenosma Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius naphthalinus Cortinariaceae No change
Cortinarius napivelatus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius nivalis Cortinariaceae No change
Cortinarius novae-zelandiae ined. Cortinariaceae Neutral
Cortinarius olivaceoniger Cortinariaceae DPR No change
Cortinarius olorinatus Cortinariaceae DPR No change
Cortinarius opaculus Cortinariaceae OL New listing
Cortinarius ophryx Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius palissandrinus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius pansicolor Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius papaver Cortinariaceae DPR No change
Cortinarius paraoniti Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius paraonui Cortinariaceae DPR New listing
Cortinarius pectochelis Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius peraurilis Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius periclymenus Cortinariaceae No change
Cortinarius peristeris Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius persicanus Cortinariaceae No change
Cortinarius pisciodorus Cortinariaceae DPR No change
Table 8 continued
Continued on next page

26 Cooper et al. 2022 – Conservation status of non-lichenised fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021
ASSESSMENT NAME FAMILY CRITERIA | QUALIFIERS STATUS CHANGE
Cortinarius promethenus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius pseliocaulis Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius pselioticton Cortinariaceae DPR New listing
Cortinarius purpureocapitatus Cortinariaceae DPR New listing
Cortinarius rattinoides Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius rattinus Cortinariaceae No change
Cortinarius rubrimarginatus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius rubrocastaneus Cortinariaceae No change
Cortinarius rubrodactylus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius rugosiceps Cortinariaceae DPR No change
Cortinarius sarcinochrous Cortinariaceae DPR No change
Cortinarius sciurellus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius suecicolor Cortinariaceae DPR New listing
Cortinarius thaumastus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius tigrellus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius turcopes Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius urbiculus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius ursus Cortinariaceae No change
Cortinarius vinicolor Cortinariaceae DPR No change
Cortinarius violaceovolvatus Cortinariaceae DPR No change
Cortinarius viscincisus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius viscostriatus Cortinariaceae DPR No change
Cortinarius viscoviridis Cortinariaceae No change
Cortinarius vitreofulvus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius waiporianus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius wallacei Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius xenosmatoides Cortinariaceae New listing
Crepidotus affinis Crepidotaceae New listing
Crepidotus albolanatus Crepidotaceae New listing
Crepidotus brunneomarginatus Crepidotaceae New listing
Crepidotus carneolus Crepidotaceae New listing
Crepidotus dilutus Crepidotaceae New listing
Crepidotus fuscovelutinus Crepidotaceae New listing
Crepidotus fuscus Crepidotaceae New listing
Crepidotus gilvidus Crepidotaceae New listing
Crepidotus improvisus Crepidotaceae DPR No change
Crepidotus isabellinus Crepidotaceae New listing
Crepidotus lateralipes Crepidotaceae New listing
Crepidotus mutabilis Crepidotaceae New listing
Crepidotus nanicus Crepidotaceae DPR No change
Crepidotus novae-zealandiae Crepidotaceae No change
Crepidotus occultus Crepidotaceae New listing
Crepidotus parietalis Crepidotaceae No change
Crepidotus plumulosus Crepidotaceae New listing
Crepidotus praecipuus Crepidotaceae New listing
Crepidotus rufidulus Crepidotaceae New listing
Crepidotus rufofloccosus Crepidotaceae New listing
Crepidotus semiorbatus Crepidotaceae New listing
Table 8 continued
Continued on next page

27
New Zealand Threat Classification Series 38
ASSESSMENT NAME FAMILY CRITERIA | QUALIFIERS STATUS CHANGE
Crepidotus trulliformis Crepidotaceae New listing
Crepidotus variegatus Crepidotaceae New listing
Crucispora naucorioides Tubariaceae No change
Cryptomarasmius exustoides Physalacriaceae No change
Cryptomarasmius fishii Physalacriaceae No change
Cryptomarasmius micraster Physalacriaceae No change
Cryptomarasmius rhopalostylidis Physalacriaceae No change
Cuphophyllus griseorufescens Hygrophoraceae OL No change
Cyathus colensoi Nidulariaceae No change
Cyathus hookeri Nidulariaceae No change
Cystoagaricus strobilomyces Psathyrellaceae New listing
Deconica citrispora Strophariaceae No change
Deconica vorax Strophariaceae No change
Dermoloma hemisphaericum Agaricaceae No change
Dermoloma murinum Agaricaceae No change
Entoloma aberrans Entolomataceae DPR No change
Entoloma acuminatum Entolomataceae DPR New listing
Entoloma asprelloides Entolomataceae DPR No change
Entoloma cavipes Entolomataceae DPR No change
Entoloma cerifactum Entolomataceae DPR New listing
Entoloma cerinum Entolomataceae No change
Entoloma colensoi Entolomataceae DPR No change
Entoloma confusum Entolomataceae DPR New listing
Entoloma consanguineum Entolomataceae DPR New listing
Entoloma corneum Entolomataceae DPR No change
Entoloma crinitum Entolomataceae No change
Entoloma croceum Entolomataceae No change
Entoloma cucurbita Entolomataceae DPR No change
Entoloma deceptivum Entolomataceae DPR No change
Entoloma deprensum Entolomataceae DPR New listing
Entoloma distinctum Entolomataceae DPR New listing
Entoloma duplocoloratum Entolomataceae DPR New listing
Entoloma elegantissimum Entolomataceae DPR New listing
Entoloma fabulosum Entolomataceae New listing
Entoloma farinolens Entolomataceae DPR No change
Entoloma gelatinosum Entolomataceae No change
Entoloma glaucoroseum Entolomataceae New listing
Entoloma gracile Entolomataceae DPR No change
Entoloma haeuslerianum Entolomataceae DPR No change
Entoloma imbecille Entolomataceae DPR No change
Entoloma improvisum Entolomataceae DPR New listing
Entoloma inops Entolomataceae DPR New listing
Entoloma inventum Entolomataceae DPR New listing
Entoloma latericolor Entolomataceae No change
Entoloma macnabbianum Entolomataceae DPR No change
Entoloma mancum Entolomataceae DPR New listing
Entoloma mariae Entolomataceae DPR New listing
Entoloma melleum Entolomataceae DPR No change
Table 8 continued
Continued on next page

28 Cooper et al. 2022 – Conservation status of non-lichenised fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021
ASSESSMENT NAME FAMILY CRITERIA | QUALIFIERS STATUS CHANGE
Entoloma minutoalbum Entolomataceae No change
Entoloma neosericellum Entolomataceae DPR New listing
Entoloma niveum Entolomataceae SO No change
Entoloma obrusseum Entolomataceae No change
Entoloma orichalceum Entolomataceae DPR New listing
Entoloma parasericeum Entolomataceae DPR New listing
Entoloma peraffine Entolomataceae DPR New listing
Entoloma perconfusum Entolomataceae New listing
Entoloma perplexum Entolomataceae No change
Entoloma pumilum Entolomataceae DPR New listing
Entoloma rancidulum Entolomataceae DPR No change
Entoloma readiae Entolomataceae No change
Entoloma squamiferum Entolomataceae DPR No change
Entoloma stramineum Entolomataceae DPR New listing
Entoloma sulphureum Entolomataceae No change
Entoloma tectum Entolomataceae DPR New listing
Entoloma vulsum Entolomataceae No change
Entoloma waikaremoana Entolomataceae New listing
Favolaschia austrocyatheae Mycenaceae New listing
Flammula croesus Hymenogastraceae DPR No change
Flammula schinziana Hymenogastraceae DPR No change
Flammulaster ciliatus Tubariaceae New listing
Flammulaster disseminatus Tubariaceae DPR New listing
Flammulaster pulveraceus Tubariaceae DPR No change
Flammulina stratosa Physalacriaceae No change
Galerina excentrica Hymenogastraceae No change
Galerina nothofaginea Hymenogastraceae No change
Gerhardtia pseudosaponacea Lyophyllaceae New listing
Gerronema waikanaense Porotheleaceae No change
Gliophorus fumosogriseus Hygrophoraceae No change
Gliophorus lilacinoides Hygrophoraceae DPR New listing
Gliophorus ostrinus Hygrophoraceae DPR No change
Gliophorus subheteromorphus Hygrophoraceae DPR No change
Gliophorus sulfureus Hygrophoraceae DPR New listing
Gliophorus versicolor Hygrophoraceae DPR New listing
Gliophorus viscaurantius Hygrophoraceae No change
Gloiocephala gracilis Physalacriaceae No change
Gloiocephala phormiorum Physalacriaceae No change
Gloiocephala tibiicystis Physalacriaceae No change
Gymnopilus mesosporus Agaricales incertae sedis No change
Gymnopus ceraceicola Omphalotaceae New listing
Gymnopus cockaynei Omphalotaceae DPR New listing
Gymnopus imbricatus Omphalotaceae New listing
Gymnopus subsupinus Omphalotaceae DPR New listing
Heimiomyces atrofulvus Mycenaceae No change
Hemimycena hirsuta Agaricales incertae sedis No change
Hemimycena reducta Agaricales incertae sedis OL No change
Hohenbuehelia ligulata Pleurotaceae SO New listing
Table 8 continued
Continued on next page

29
New Zealand Threat Classification Series 38
ASSESSMENT NAME FAMILY CRITERIA | QUALIFIERS STATUS CHANGE
Hohenbuehelia luteola Pleurotaceae DPR No change
Humidicutis conspicua Hygrophoraceae DPR No change
Humidicutis multicolor Hygrophoraceae DPR No change
Humidicutis rosella Hygrophoraceae No change
Hydnangium kanuka Hydnangiaceae New listing
Hygrocybe blanda Hygrophoraceae DPR No change
Hygrocybe cavipes Hygrophoraceae DPR New listing
Hygrocybe elegans Hygrophoraceae DPR No change
Hygrocybe fuliginata Hygrophoraceae No change
Hygrocybe fuscoaurantiaca Hygrophoraceae DPR No change
Hygrocybe helobia Hygrophoraceae DPR New listing
Hygrocybe keithgeorgei Hygrophoraceae DPR New listing
Hygrocybe miniatoaurantiaca Hygrophoraceae DPR No change
Hygrocybe miniceps Hygrophoraceae DPR No change
Hygrocybe singeri Hygrophoraceae DPR New listing
Hygrophorus carcharias Hygrophoraceae DPR No change
Hygrophorus gloriae Hygrophoraceae DPR No change
Hygrophorus segregatus Hygrophoraceae DPR No change
Inocybe brunneolutea Inocybaceae New listing
Inocybe callichroa Inocybaceae New listing
Inocybe cerea Inocybaceae DPR No change
Inocybe densipruinosa Inocybaceae New listing
Inocybe destruens Inocybaceae DPR No change
Inocybe dissimilis Inocybaceae New listing
Inocybe intermedia Inocybaceae New listing
Inocybe irregularis Inocybaceae New listing
Inocybe magnibulbosa Inocybaceae New listing
Inocybe mendica Inocybaceae No change
Inocybe microsperma Inocybaceae New listing
Inocybe misera Inocybaceae New listing
Inocybe ovispora Inocybaceae New listing
Inocybe paracerasphora Inocybaceae DPR No change
Inocybe phaeosquarrosa Inocybaceae DPR No change
Inocybe scabriuscula Inocybaceae No change
Inocybe scobifera Inocybaceae New listing
Inocybe strobilacea Inocybaceae New listing
Inocybe subclavata Inocybaceae DPR No change
Inocybe tenax Inocybaceae New listing
Inocybe turbata Inocybaceae New listing
Inocybe umbrosa Inocybaceae DPR No change
Inocybe vagata Inocybaceae New listing
Inocybe vicina Inocybaceae New listing
Inocybe viscata Inocybaceae DPR No change
Laccaria ambigua Hydnangiaceae New listing
Laccaria lilacina Hydnangiaceae New listing
Lepiota adusta Agaricaceae DPR No change
Lepista antipoda Clitocybaceae DPR No change
Leucoagaricus croceovelutinus Agaricaceae DPR New listing
Table 8 continued
Continued on next page

30 Cooper et al. 2022 – Conservation status of non-lichenised fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021
ASSESSMENT NAME FAMILY CRITERIA | QUALIFIERS STATUS CHANGE
Limacella pitereka Amanitaceae DPR New listing
Limacella wheroparaonea Amanitaceae No change
Lyophyllum moncalvoanum Lyophyllaceae New listing
Marasmiellus omphaloides Omphalotaceae DPR No change
Marasmius aucklandicus Marasmiaceae DPR No change
Marasmius aurantiobasalis Marasmiaceae DPR New listing
Marasmius croceus Marasmiaceae No change
Marasmius kanukaneus Marasmiaceae DPR No change
Marasmius masoniae Marasmiaceae DPR No change
Marasmius meridionalis Marasmiaceae DPR No change
Marasmius otagensis Marasmiaceae DPR No change
Marasmius pallenticeps Marasmiaceae DPR No change
Marasmius perpusillus Marasmiaceae DPR No change
Marasmius podocarpicola Marasmiaceae DPR No change
Marasmius pusillissimus Marasmiaceae DPR No change
Marasmius rhombisporus Marasmiaceae DPR No change
Marasmius rimuphilus Marasmiaceae DPR No change
Marasmius rosulatus Marasmiaceae DPR No change
Marasmius tinctorius Marasmiaceae DPR New listing
Marasmius unilamellatus Marasmiaceae DPR No change
Mycena austroavenacea Mycenaceae DPR No change
Mycena galopus Mycenaceae DPR, SO No change
Mycena helminthobasis var. novae-zelandiae Mycenaceae No change
Mycena leaiana var. australis Mycenaceae SO No change
Mycena lividorubra Mycenaceae DPR No change
Mycena mamaku Mycenaceae No change
Mycena oratiensis Mycenaceae DPR No change
Mycena podocarpi Mycenaceae DPR No change
Mycena primulina Mycenaceae DPR No change
Mycena rubroglobulosa Mycenaceae DPR No change
Mycena subdebilis Mycenaceae DPR New listing
Mycena vinacea Mycenaceae No change
Mycena vinaceipora Mycenaceae DPR No change
Naucoria aurora Hymenogastraceae DPR No change
Neohygrocybe innata Hygrophoraceae No change
Neohygrocybe squarrosa Hygrophoraceae No change
Nivatogastrium lignicola Strophariaceae DPR No change
Nivatogastrium sulcatum Strophariaceae DPR No change
Omphalia colensoi Mycenaceae DPR No change
Panellus niger Mycenaceae DPR No change
Phaeocollybia elegans Hymenogastraceae New listing
Phaeocollybia gracilis Hymenogastraceae New listing
Phaeocollybia longipes Hymenogastraceae No change
Phaeocollybia minuta Hymenogastraceae No change
Phaeocollybia ratticauda Hymenogastraceae New listing
Phaeocollybia tenuis Hymenogastraceae New listing
Phaeomarasmius umbrinus Tubariaceae New listing
Pholiota chrysmoides Strophariaceae DPR No change
Table 8 continued
Continued on next page

31
New Zealand Threat Classification Series 38
ASSESSMENT NAME FAMILY CRITERIA | QUALIFIERS STATUS CHANGE
Pholiotina novae-zelandiae Bolbitiaceae DPR No change
Pleurocollybia cremea Biannulariaceae DPR No change
Pleuroflammula ambigua Crepidotaceae New listing
Pleurotus novae-zelandiae Pleurotaceae DPR No change
Pleurotus velatus Pleurotaceae DPR No change
Pluteus decoloratus Pluteaceae DPR New listing
Pluteus hispidilacteus Pluteaceae DPR New listing
Pluteus microspermus Pluteaceae DPR New listing
Pluteus minor Pluteaceae DPR No change
Pluteus paradoxus Pluteaceae DPR New listing
Pluteus readiarum Pluteaceae DPR New listing
Pluteus sabulosus Pluteaceae DPR New listing
Pluteus subantarcticus Pluteaceae DPR New listing
Pluteus terricola Pluteaceae DPR New listing
Porpoloma amyloideum Tricholomataceae No change
Pouzarella minuta Entolomataceae No change
Psathyloma leucocarpum Hymenogastraceae New listing
Pseudoarmillariella fistulosa Hygrophoraceae DPR No change
Pseudoclitocybe foetida Pseudoclitocybaceae DPR No change
Pseudosperma renisporum Inocybaceae No change
Pyrrhoglossum pyrrhum Cortinariaceae DPR New listing
Pyrrhoglossum viriditinctum Cortinariaceae DPR No change
Resupinatus huia Pleurotaceae DPR No change
Resupinatus poriaeformis Pleurotaceae DPR New listing
Resupinatus subapplicatus Pleurotaceae DPR New listing
Resupinatus trichotis Pleurotaceae DPR New listing
Rhodocybe albovelutina Entolomataceae DPR No change
Rhodocybe conchata Entolomataceae DPR No change
Rhodocybe dingleyae Entolomataceae DPR No change
Rhodocybe fuliginea Entolomataceae DPR No change
Rhodocybe iti Entolomataceae DPR No change
Rhodocybe maleolens Entolomataceae DPR No change
Rhodocybe multilamellata Entolomataceae DPR New listing
Simocybe austrorubi Crepidotaceae DPR No change
Simocybe largispora Crepidotaceae New listing
Simocybe luteomellea Crepidotaceae DPR No change
Simocybe tabacina Crepidotaceae DPR No change
Simocybe unica Crepidotaceae DPR No change
Tubaria aureosimilis Tubariaceae No change
Tubaria deceptiva Tubariaceae New listing
Tubaria divulgata Tubariaceae New listing
Tubaria excentrica Tubariaceae New listing
Tubaria hispidula Tubariaceae DPR No change
Tubaria lanatula Tubariaceae DPR No change
Tubaria mediocris Tubariaceae New listing
Tubaria pallidissima Tubariaceae New listing
Tubaria peculiaris Tubariaceae New listing
Tubaria perplexa Tubariaceae New listing
Table 8 continued
Continued on next page

32 Cooper et al. 2022 – Conservation status of non-lichenised fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021
ASSESSMENT NAME FAMILY CRITERIA | QUALIFIERS STATUS CHANGE
Tubaria perstriata Tubariaceae New listing
Tubaria recta Tubariaceae New listing
Tubaria similis Tubariaceae New listing
Tubaria verrucipes Tubariaceae DPR No change
Volvaria primulina Pluteaceae DPR No change
Xeromphalina podocarpi Mycenaceae No change
Xeromphalina testacea Mycenaceae DPR No change
Boletes (5)
Boletus novae-zelandiae Boletaceae No change
Boletus rawlingsii Boletaceae New listing
Xerocomus lentistipitatus Boletaceae DPR No change
Xerocomus rufostipitatus Boletaceae DPR No change
Xerocomus scabripes Boletaceae DPR New listing
Russuloid fungi (6)
Auriscalpium umbella Auriscalpiaceae New listing
Lactarius maruiaensis Russulaceae DPR Neutral
Lactarius nothofagi Russulaceae DPR No change
Lactifluus leonardii Russulaceae New listing
Russula solitaria Russulaceae DPR Neutral
Russula vivida Russulaceae DPR Neutral
Taxonomically unresolved (148)
Agarics (140)
Agaricus sp. ‘Kaitorete (PDD 105574)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Agaricus sp. ‘Prices Valley (PDD 87152)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Agaricus sp. ‘Rimu Valley (PDD 94844)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Agaricus sp. ‘Trounson Park (PDD 106423)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Agaricus sp. ‘Waipoua (PDD 106424)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Amanita sp. ‘Bealey (PDD 95341)’ Amanitaceae New listing
Arrhenia sp. ‘Klondyke (PDD 96475)’ Hygrophoraceae New listing
Bolbitius sp. 1 (ZT 69/109) Bolbitiaceae New listing
Bolbitius sp. 2 (PDD 86214) Bolbitiaceae New listing
Callistosporium sp. ‘Mt Grey (PDD 95689)’ Callistosporiaceae New listing
Clavogaster sp. ‘Whakapapa (PDD 72612)’ Strophariaceae New listing
Clitocella sp. ‘Huntly (PDD 106942)’ Entolomataceae New listing
Clitocybe sp. ‘Klondyke (PDD 95822)’ Clitocybaceae New listing
Clitocybula sp. ‘Hay Reserve (PDD 96442)’ Porotheleaceae New listing
Conocybe sp. ‘Omahu Bush (PDD 87267)’ Bolbitiaceae New listing
Coprinopsis sp. Psathyrellaceae New listing
Cortinarius sp. (PDD 77486) Cortinariaceae DPR New listing
Cortinarius sp. (ZT NZ8682) Cortinariaceae DPR New listing
Cortinarius sp. ‘badiohepaticus’ Cortinariaceae DPR New listing
Cortinarius sp. ‘Alborn (PDD 83767)’ Cortinariaceae DPR New listing
Cortinarius sp. ‘Blyth Track (PDD 80792)’ Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius sp. ‘Nina Valley (PDD106575)’ Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius sp. ‘Okuti (PDD 96759)’ Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius sp. ‘Punchbowl (PDD 95246)’ Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius sp. ‘Waipori (PDD 87651)’ Cortinariaceae New listing
Table 8 continued
Continued on next page

33
New Zealand Threat Classification Series 38
Table 8 continued
Continued on next page
ASSESSMENT NAME FAMILY CRITERIA | QUALIFIERS STATUS CHANGE
Cortinarius sp. ‘Waitematā (PDD 106495)’ Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius sp. ‘Whakapapa (PDD 80871)’ Cortinariaceae DPR New listing
Crepidotus sp. ‘Waipori Gorge (PDD 87521)’ Crepidotaceae New listing
Cyptotrama sp. ‘Waipoua (PDD 72864)’ Physalacriaceae New listing
Cystoderma sp. ‘Canaan (PDD 107735)’ Cystodermataceae New listing
Cystolepiota sp. ‘Kaikoura (PDD 96136)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Cystolepiota sp. ‘Maungatautari (PDD 106899)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Cystolepiota sp. ‘Nile River (PDD 87126)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Galerina sp. 1 Hymenogastraceae New listing
Galerina sp. 2 Hymenogastraceae New listing
Galerina sp. 3 Hymenogastraceae New listing
Gerhardtia sp. ‘Waipoua (PDD 106827)’ Lyophyllaceae New listing
Gerronema sp. ‘Howick (PDD 105913)’ Porotheleaceae New listing
Gerronema sp. ‘Lake Rotoiti (PDD 81522)’ Porotheleaceae New listing
Gerronema sp. ‘Pororari (PDD 87079)’ Porotheleaceae New listing
Gymnopus sp. ‘Craigieburn (PDD 95664)’ Omphalotaceae New listing
Gymnopus sp. ‘Moonlight Valley (PDD 112442)’ Omphalotaceae New listing
Gymnopus sp. ‘Oparara (PDD 87100)’ Omphalotaceae New listing
Hodophilus sp. ‘Aongatete (PDD 106327)’ Clavariaceae New listing
Hohenbuehelia sp. ‘Ahuriri (PDD 79837)’ Pleurotaceae New listing
Hydropus sp. ‘Kaituna Valley (PDD 86984)’ Porotheleaceae New listing
Hydropus sp. ‘Kennedys Bush (PDD 86896)’ Porotheleaceae New listing
Hydropus sp. ‘Totara Reserve (PDD 106626)’ Porotheleaceae New listing
Laccaria sp. ‘Lewis Pass (PDD 80273)’ Hydnangiaceae New listing
Lactocollybia sp. ‘Waitangi (PDD 83732)’ Marasmiaceae New listing
Leucoagaricus sp. ‘Bankside (PDD 96879)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Leucoagaricus sp. ‘Borland (PDD 96572)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Leucoagaricus sp. ‘Erua Forest (PDD 80769)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Leucoagaricus sp. ‘Evansdale Glen (PDD 87531)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Leucoagaricus sp. ‘Glenorchy (PDD 106356)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Leucoagaricus sp. ‘Gypsy Glen (PDD 87679)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Leucoagaricus sp. ‘Hay Reserve (PDD 87677)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Leucoagaricus sp. ‘Huntsbury (PDD 106702)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Leucoagaricus sp. ‘Kahikatea (PDD 106095)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Leucoagaricus sp. ‘Kaituna Valley (PDD 86991)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Leucoagaricus sp. ‘Lake Daniell (PDD 97167)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Leucoagaricus sp. ‘Lake Rotoiti (PDD 97161)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Leucoagaricus sp. ‘Mt Bruce (PDD 87444)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Leucoagaricus sp. ‘Okuti Valley (PDD 87672)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Leucoagaricus sp. ‘Prices Valley (PDD 87159)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Leucoagaricus sp. ‘Rotokuru Lakes(PDD 80831)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Leucoagaricus sp. ‘Waiohine Gorge (PDD 87425)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Leucoagaricus sp. ‘Waipoua (PDD 106461)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Leucoagaricus sp. ‘Woodside Glen (PDD 87532)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Lyophyllum sp. ‘Rangitaiki (PDD 96287)’ Lyophyllaceae New listing
Macrocystidia sp. ‘Pennycook (PDD 106058)’ Macrocystidiaceae New listing
Marasmiellus sp. ‘Ahuriri (PDD 87323)’ Omphalotaceae New listing
Marasmiellus sp. ‘Mt Fyffe (PDD 96142)‘ Omphalotaceae New listing

34 Cooper et al. 2022 – Conservation status of non-lichenised fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021
Table 8 continued
Continued on next page
ASSESSMENT NAME FAMILY CRITERIA | QUALIFIERS STATUS CHANGE
Marasmiellus sp. ‘Taieri (PDD 87549)’ Omphalotaceae New listing
Melanophyllum sp. ‘coffeinum (PDD 72512)’ Agaricaceae New listing
Mycena sp. ‘Ahuriri Reserve (PDD 80918)’ Mycenaceae New listing
Mycena sp. ‘Arnold River (PDD 112464)’ Mycenaceae New listing
Mycena sp. ‘Barracouta (PDD 96657)’ Mycenaceae New listing
Mycena sp. ‘Croydon Bush (PDD 96601)’ Mycenaceae New listing
Mycena sp. ‘Crystal Falls (PDD 87606)’ Mycenaceae New listing
Mycena sp. ‘Duffy Creek (PDD 83791)’ Mycenaceae New listing
Mycena sp. ‘Erua (PDD 80772)’ Mycenaceae New listing
Mycena sp. ‘Huia (PDD 94356)’ Mycenaceae New listing
Mycena sp. ‘Kaituna (PDD 105568)’ Mycenaceae New listing
Mycena sp. ‘Kennedys Bush (PDD 80686)’ Mycenaceae New listing
Mycena sp. ‘Mt Grey (PDD 87308)’ Mycenaceae New listing
Mycena sp. ‘Nile River (PDD 87114)’ Mycenaceae New listing
Mycena sp. ‘Okuti (PDD 105529)’ Mycenaceae New listing
Mycena sp. ‘Oparara Arches (PDD 87085)’ Mycenaceae New listing
Mycena sp. ‘Rangitaiki (PDD 96286)’ Mycenaceae New listing
Mycena sp. ‘Rangiwahia (PDD 106087)’ Mycenaceae New listing
Mycena sp. ‘Riwaka (PDD 88434)’ Mycenaceae New listing
Mycena sp. ‘Waiohine Gorge (PDD 87377)’ Mycenaceae New listing
Mycena sp. ‘Waiopehu (PDD 112491)’ Mycenaceae New listing
Myochromella sp. ‘Craigieburn (PDD 96415)’ Lyophyllaceae New listing
Omphalina sp. ‘Rangitaiki (PDD 96275)’ Tricholomataceae New listing
Phaeocollybia sp. 1 Hymenogastraceae New listing
Phaeocollybia sp. 2 Hymenogastraceae New listing
Phloeomana sp. ‘Lincoln (PDD 106167)’ Porotheleaceae New listing
Pholiota sp. (PDD 78806) Strophariaceae New listing
Pholiota sp. ‘Borland (PDD 96574)’ Strophariaceae New listing
Pholiota sp. ‘Hinewai (PDD 80269)’ Strophariaceae New listing
Pholiota sp. ‘Te Wera (PDD 97060)’ Strophariaceae New listing
Pluteus sp. ‘Howick (PDD 107524)’ Pluteaceae New listing
Porpoloma sp. ‘caespitosa (PDD 96731)’ Tricholomataceae New listing
Psathyrella sp. ‘Butterfly Creek (PDD 10619)’ Psathyrellaceae New listing
Psathyrella sp. ‘Jollies Bush (PDD 96201)’ Psathyrellaceae New listing
Psathyrella sp. ‘Travis (PDD 87699)’ Psathyrellaceae New listing
Pseudotricholoma sp. ‘Munro (PDD 112523)’ Tricholomataceae New listing
Psilocybe sp. 1 Hymenogastraceae New listing
Psilocybe sp. 2 Hymenogastraceae New listing
Resinomycena sp. ‘Montgomery Park (PDD 87050)’ Mycenaceae New listing
Resupinatus sp. ‘Howick (PDD 107004)’ Pleurotaceae New listing
Rhizocybe sp. ‘Lake Taylor (PDD 96758)’ Lyophyllaceae New listing
Rhizocybe sp. ‘Pureora (PDD 96261)’ Lyophyllaceae New listing
Rhodocollybia delicata ined. Omphalotaceae No change
Rhodocollybia sp. ‘Monowai (PDD 96596)’ Omphalotaceae New listing
Rhodocollybia sp. ‘Mt Bruce (PDD 87462)’ Omphalotaceae New listing
Rhodocollybia sp. ‘Mt Holdsworth (PDD 87463)’ Omphalotaceae New listing
Rhodocollybia sp. ‘Rimutaka (PDD 95543)’ Omphalotaceae New listing
Rhodocollybia sp. ‘Trounson Park (PDD 106475)’ Omphalotaceae New listing

35
New Zealand Threat Classification Series 38
Table 8 continued
Continued on next page
ASSESSMENT NAME FAMILY CRITERIA | QUALIFIERS STATUS CHANGE
Rhodocybe sp. ‘Rimutaka (PDD 95549)’ Entolomataceae New listing
Ripartitella sp. ‘Totaranui (PDD 105703)‘ Agaricales incertae sedis No change
Roridomyces sp. ‘Sugarloaf (PDD 86843)’ Mycenaceae New listing
Stropharia sp. ‘Kennedys Bush (PDD 79791)’ Strophariaceae New listing
Tephrocybella sp. ‘Howick (PDD 106517)’ Lyophyllaceae New listing
Tephrocybella sp. ‘Pohangina (PDD 106933)’ Lyophyllaceae New listing
Tricholoma sp. ‘apricota (PDD 96895)’ Tricholomataceae New listing
Tricholoma sp. ‘atrofibrillosa (PDD 106578)’ Tricholomataceae New listing
Tricholoma sp. ‘aurilamellata (PDD 72632)’ Tricholomataceae New listing
Tricholoma sp. ‘beeveri (PDD 71133)’ Tricholomataceae New listing
Tricholoma sp. ‘crocipes’ Tricholomataceae New listing
Tricholoma sp. ‘koura (PDD 96646)’ Tricholomataceae New listing
Tricholoma sp. ‘pohutihuti (PDD 72757)’ Tricholomataceae New listing
Tricholoma sp. ‘tasmanense (PDD 101806)’ Tricholomataceae New listing
Tricholoma sp. ‘tenebripila (PDD 96653)’ Tricholomataceae New listing
Tricholoma sp. ‘tokena (PDD 88256)’ Tricholomataceae New listing
Tricholoma sp. ‘wangapeka (PDD 101809)’ Tricholomataceae New listing
Tricholoma sp. ‘whakapapa (PDD 88824)’ Tricholomataceae New listing
Zhuliangomyces sp. ‘Rangitikei (PDD 108478)’ Amanitaceae New listing
Boletes (2)
Boletus paradisiacus Boletaceae DPR New listing
Tylopilus sp. ‘Keith George (PDD 96917)’ Boletaceae New listing
Russuloid fungi (6)
Russula sp. ‘canaanesis (PDD 107487)‘ Russulaceae New listing
Russula sp. ‘hinewaiensis (PDD 95309)’ Russulaceae New listing
Russula sp. ‘horopito (PDD 80761)’ Russulaceae New listing
Russula sp. ‘pyrispora (PDD 101430)’ Russulaceae New listing
Russula sp. ‘riwakaensis (PDD 101437)’ Russulaceae New listing
Russula sp. ‘wilsonii (PDD 96004)’ Russulaceae New listing
THREATENED (44)
NATIONALLY CRITICAL (1)
Taxonomically determinate (1)
Agarics (1)
Deconica baylisiana Strophariaceae A(1) | Sp, CI, CR, DPS,
DPT, RR
Neutral
NATIONALLY ENDANGERED (2)
Taxonomically determinate (2)
Boletes (1)
Xerocomus griseoolivaceus Boletaceae C(1) | DPS, DPT New listing
Russuloid fungi (1)
Russula pleurogena Russulaceae C(1) | DPS, DPT Better
NATIONALLY VULNERABLE (41)
Taxonomically determinate (37)
Agarics (28)
Cortinarius canovestitus Cortinariaceae De New listing

36 Cooper et al. 2022 – Conservation status of non-lichenised fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021
Table 8 continued
Continued on next page
ASSESSMENT NAME FAMILY CRITERIA | QUALIFIERS STATUS CHANGE
Cortinarius coneae Cortinariaceae DPR, De Neutral
Cortinarius cremeorufus Cortinariaceae DPR New listing
Cortinarius cruentoides Cortinariaceae De New listing
Cortinarius egmontianus Cortinariaceae DPR, De Neutral
Cortinarius gemmeus Cortinariaceae DPR, De Neutral
Cortinarius ignotus Cortinariaceae Neutral
Cortinarius largofulgens Cortinariaceae De Neutral
Cortinarius medioscaurus Cortinariaceae De New listing
Cortinarius minilacus Cortinariaceae De New listing
Cortinarius minoscaurus Cortinariaceae De Neutral
Cortinarius phaeochlorus Cortinariaceae DPR, De Neutral
Cortinarius pholiotellus Cortinariaceae De Neutral
Cortinarius porphyrophaeus Cortinariaceae De Neutral
Cortinarius psilomorphus Cortinariaceae De New listing
Cortinarius salmastrium Cortinariaceae De New listing
Cortinarius vernicifer Cortinariaceae De New listing
Cortinarius verniciorum Cortinariaceae De New listing
Inocybe aequalis Inocybaceae DPR, De Neutral
Inocybe amygdalina Inocybaceae DPR, De Neutral
Inocybe graveolens Inocybaceae DPR, De Neutral
Inocybe infirma Inocybaceae De New listing
Inocybe manukanea Inocybaceae DPR, De Neutral
Inocybe poculata Inocybaceae De New listing
Inocybe straminea Inocybaceae DPR, De, OL Neutral
Laccaria paraphysata Hydnangiaceae De New listing
Macrocystidia reducta Macrocystidiaceae CR, DPS, DPT Neutral
Mycena flavovirens Mycenaceae C(1) | DPS, DPT Neutral
Boletes (3)
Fistulinella viscida Boletaceae De New listing
Gyroporus mcnabbii Gyroporaceae De New listing
Hygrophoropsis umbriceps Hygrophoropsidaceae A(1) | De Neutral
Russuloid fungi (6)
Russula albolutescens Russulaceae DPS, DPT, De New listing
Russula allochroa Russulaceae De New listing
Russula aucklandica Russulaceae DPR, De New listing
Russula multicystidiata Russulaceae De Neutral
Russula pudorina Russulaceae DPR, De New listing
Russula vinaceocuticulata Russulaceae De New listing
Taxonomically unresolved (4)
Agarics (2)
Cortinarius sp. ‘Medbury (PDD 96943)’ Cortinariaceae De New listing
Tricholoma sp. ‘leptospermi (PDD 96889)’ Tricholomataceae De New listing
Russuloid fungi (2)
Russula sp. ‘macnabbii (PDD 87008)’ Russulaceae De New listing
Russula subvinosa Russulaceae DPR, De New listing

37
New Zealand Threat Classification Series 38
Table 8 continued
Continued on next page
ASSESSMENT NAME FAMILY CRITERIA | QUALIFIERS STATUS CHANGE
AT RISK (3)
NATURALLY UNCOMMON (3)
Taxonomically determinate (3)
Agarics (2)
Anthracophyllum pallidum Omphalotaceae DPS, DPT, RR Neutral
Squamanita squarrulosa Cystodermataceae CR, DPS, DPT Better
Russuloid fungi (1)
Lactarius novae-zelandiae Russulaceae CR, DPS, DPT New listing
NOT THREATENED (330)
Taxonomically determinate (322)
Agarics (273)
Agaricus comtulus Agaricaceae SO New listing
Agaricus horakianus Agaricaceae SO Neutral
Agaricus karstomyces Agaricaceae DPR, SO New listing
Agaricus viridopurpurascens Agaricaceae Neutral
Amanita australis Amanitaceae New listing
Amanita nehuta Amanitaceae New listing
Amanita nigrescens Amanitaceae New listing
Amanita nothofagi Amanitaceae New listing
Amanita pareparina Amanitaceae New listing
Amanita pekeoides Amanitaceae New listing
Amanita pumatona Amanitaceae DPR New listing
Amanita taiepa Amanitaceae New listing
Anthracophyllum archeri Omphalotaceae New listing
Armillaria limonea Physalacariaceae New listing
Armillaria novae-zelandiae Physalacariaceae New listing
Bolbitius muscicola Bolbitiaceae New listing
Calvatia lilacina Agaricaceae New listing
Camarophyllus lilacinus Hygrophoraceae SO New listing
Campanella tristis Marasmiaceae New listing
Chaetocalathus cocciformis Marasmiaceae New listing
Cheimonophyllum candidissimum Cyphellaceae SO Neutral
Clavogaster virescens Strophariaceae Neutral
Clitocybe metachroa Clitocybaceae SO New listing
Clitocybe paraditopa Clitocybaceae SO New listing
Clitopilus hobsonii Emtolomataceae SO Neutral
Conchomyces bursiformis Fayodiaceae New listing
Coprinopsis mitrispora Psathyrellaceae SO New listing
Cortinarius achrous Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius alboaggregatus Cortinariaceae Neutral
Cortinarius alboroseus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius alienatus Cortinariaceae Neutral
Cortinarius armiae Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius aurantioferreus Cortinariaceae Neutral
Cortinarius australiensis Cortinariaceae SO New listing
Cortinarius australis Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius austrocyanites Cortinariaceae Neutral

38 Cooper et al. 2022 – Conservation status of non-lichenised fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021
Table 8 continued
Continued on next page
ASSESSMENT NAME FAMILY CRITERIA | QUALIFIERS STATUS CHANGE
Cortinarius tessiae Cortinariaceae Neutral
Cortinarius trichocarpus Cortinariaceae New listing
Cortinarius veronicae Cortinariaceae Neutral
Cortinarius viscilaetus Cortinariaceae Neutral
Cortinarius vitreopileatus Cortinariaceae Neutral
Cortinarius xenosma Cortinariaceae New listing
Crepidotus inconspicuus Crepidotaceae New listing
Crinipellis filiformis Marasmiaceae New listing
Crinipellis procera Marasmiaceae New listing
Cuphophyllus pratensis Hygrophoraceae New listing
Cyclocybe parasitica Tubariaceae New listing
Cyptotrama asprata Physalacriaceae Neutral
Cystoderma clastotrichum Cystodermataceae New listing
Deconica horizontalis Strophariaceae New listing
Deconica novae-zelandiae Strophariaceae Neutral
Descolea gunnii Bolbitiaceae New listing
Descolea maculata Bolbitiaceae New listing
Descolea phlebophora Bolbitiaceae New listing
Descolea recedens Bolbitiaceae SO New listing
Entoloma aromaticum Entolomataceae New listing
Entoloma atrellum Entolomataceae Neutral
Entoloma baronii Entolomataceae SO New listing
Entoloma blandiodorum Entolomataceae New listing
Entoloma brunneolilacinum Entolomataceae Neutral
Entoloma canoconicum Entolomataceae Neutral
Entoloma captiosum Entolomataceae New listing
Entoloma chloroxanthum Entolomataceae Neutral
Entoloma convexum Entolomataceae New listing
Entoloma gasteromycetoides Entolomataceae New listing
Entoloma haastii Entolomataceae New listing
Entoloma hochstetteri Entolomataceae New listing
Entoloma melanocephalum Entolomataceae Neutral
Entoloma nothofagi Entolomataceae Neutral
Entoloma panniculus Entolomataceae SO New listing
Entoloma peralbidum Entolomataceae New listing
Entoloma persimile Entolomataceae New listing
Entoloma phaeomarginatum Entolomataceae Neutral
Entoloma pluteimorphum Entolomataceae Neutral
Entoloma porphyrescens Entolomataceae New listing
Entoloma procerum Entolomataceae New listing
Entoloma translucidum Entolomataceae Neutral
Entoloma uliginicola Entolomataceae Neutral
Entoloma viridomarginatum Entolomataceae Neutral
Favolaschia cyatheae Mycenaceae New listing
Favolaschia pustulosa Mycenaceae New listing
Galerina nana Hymenogastraceae New listing
Galerina neocalyptrata Hymenogastraceae SO New listing
Galerina patagonica Hymenogastraceae New listing

39
New Zealand Threat Classification Series 38
Table 8 continued
Continued on next page
ASSESSMENT NAME FAMILY CRITERIA | QUALIFIERS STATUS CHANGE
Galerina subcerina Hymenogastraceae SO New listing
Gliophorus chromolimoneus Hygrophoraceae New listing
Gliophorus graminicolor Hygrophoraceae Neutral
Gliophorus lilacipes Hygrophoraceae Neutral
Gliophorus luteoglutinosus Hygrophoraceae Neutral
Gliophorus pallidus Hygrophoraceae Neutral
Gliophorus viridis Hygrophoraceae New listing
Gloiocephala nothofagi Physalacriaceae Neutral
Gloiocephala rubescens Physalacriaceae New listing
Gloiocephala xanthocephala Physalacriaceae New listing
Gymnopus hakaroa Omphalotaceae New listing
Hebeloma aminophilum Hymenogastraceae New listing
Hebeloma lacteocoffeatum Hymenogastraceae New listing
Hebeloma mediorufum Hymenogastraceae Neutral
Hebeloma victoriense Hymenogastraceae New listing
Heimiomyces velutipes Mycenaceae Neutral
Hohenbuehelia brunnea Pleurotaceae Neutral
Hohenbuehelia nothofaginea Pleurotaceae Neutral
Hohenbuehelia parsonsiae Pleurotaceae Neutral
Humidicutis luteovirens Hygrophoraceae Neutral
Humidicutis mavis Hygrophoraceae New listing
Hydropus funebris Porotheleaceae New listing
Hydropus nigrita Porotheleaceae SO New listing
Hygrocybe astatogala Hygrophoraceae New listing
Hygrocybe cantharellus Hygrophoraceae New listing
Hygrocybe cerinolutea Hygrophoraceae Neutral
Hygrocybe firma Hygrophoraceae New listing
Hygrocybe julietae Hygrophoraceae Neutral
Hygrocybe lilaceolamellata Hygrophoraceae New listing
Hygrocybe miniata Hygrophoraceae Neutral
Hygrocybe procera Hygrophoraceae New listing
Hygrocybe rubrocarnosa Hygrophoraceae New listing
Hygrocybe striatolutea Hygrophoraceae Neutral
Hygrophorus involutus Hygrophoraceae Neutral
Hygrophorus salmonipes Hygrophoraceae New listing
Hymenopellis colensoi Physalacriaceae Neutral
Hypholoma acutum Strophariaceae New listing
Hypholoma australianum Strophariaceae SO New listing
Hypholoma brunneum Strophariaceae New listing
Inocybe albovestita Inocybaceae New listing
Inocybe brevicula Inocybaceae SO New listing
Inocybe brunneidisca Inocybaceae SO New listing
Inocybe bulbinella Inocybaceae SO New listing
Inocybe caerulata Inocybaceae SO New listing
Inocybe fulvilubrica Inocybaceae SO New listing
Inocybe fuscosquarrosa Inocybaceae SO New listing
Inocybe horakomyces Inocybaceae SO Neutral
Inocybe leptospermi Inocybaceae Neutral

40 Cooper et al. 2022 – Conservation status of non-lichenised fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021
Table 8 continued
Continued on next page
ASSESSMENT NAME FAMILY CRITERIA | QUALIFIERS STATUS CHANGE
Inocybe lucifera Inocybaceae SO New listing
Inocybe luteobulbosa Inocybaceae SO New listing
Inocybe scissa Inocybaceae New listing
Inocybe serratoides Inocybaceae New listing
Inocybe strobilomyces Inocybaceae New listing
Inocybe subferruginea Inocybaceae SO New listing
Inocybe sylvicola Inocybaceae SO New listing
Inosperma calamistratoides Inocybaceae New listing
Inosperma latericium Inocybaceae Neutral
Kuehneromyces brunneoalbescens Strophariaceae SO New listing
Laccaria fibrillosa Hydnangiaceae New listing
Laccaria glabripes Hydnangiaceae New listing
Laccaria masoniae Hydnangiaceae New listing
Laccaria violaceonigra Hydnangiaceae New listing
Lacrymaria asperospora Psathyrellaceae SO Neutral
Lentinula novae-zelandiae Omphalotaceae New listing
Lepiota calcarata Agaricaceae Neutral
Leratiomyces erythrocephalus Strophariaceae New listing
Leucoagaricus serenus Agaricaceae SO New listing
Leucopaxillus eucalyptorum Tricholomataceae SO New listing
Leucopaxillus lilacinus Tricholomataceae New listing
Lyophyllum decastes Lyophyllaceae SO New listing
Macrolepiota clelandii Agaricaceae Neutral
Marasmiellus bonii Omphalotaceae Neutral
Marasmiellus dichrous Omphalotaceae SO New listing
Marasmiellus subnudus Omphalotaceae SO New listing
Marasmius atrocastaneus Marasmiaceae New listing
Marasmius elegans Marasmiaceae New listing
Marasmius gelatinosipes Marasmiaceae Neutral
Marasmius pusio Marasmiaceae Neutral
Melanoleuca fusca Pluteaceae SO New listing
Melanophyllum haematospermum Agaricaceae SO New listing
Mycena austrofilopes Mycenaceae SO New listing
Mycena carmeliana Mycenaceae SO New listing
Mycena clarkeana Mycenaceae SO New listing
Mycena cystidiosa Mycenaceae SO New listing
Mycena fuscovinacea Mycenaceae SO New listing
Mycena globuliformis Mycenaceae Neutral
Mycena interrupta Mycenaceae New listing
Mycena mariae Mycenaceae New listing
Mycena morrisjonesii Mycenaceae Neutral
Mycena oculisnymphae Mycenaceae SO New listing
Mycena parsonsii Mycenaceae New listing
Mycena roseoflava Mycenaceae New listing
Mycena stevensoniae Mycenaceae Neutral
Mycena subviscosa Mycenaceae New listing
Mycena ura Mycenaceae New listing
Mycetinis curraniae Omphalotaceae Neutral

41
New Zealand Threat Classification Series 38
Table 8 continued
Continued on next page
ASSESSMENT NAME FAMILY CRITERIA | QUALIFIERS STATUS CHANGE
Omphalina wellingtonensis Tricholomataceae Neutral
Oudemansiella australis Physalacariaceae New listing
Panaeolus fimbriatus Panaeolaceae New listing
Panellus luxfilamentus Mycenaceae New listing
Panellus minimus Mycenaceae New listing
Panellus stypticus Mycenaceae New listing
Pholiota cerea Strophariaceae New listing
Pholiota glutinosa Strophariaceae Neutral
Pholiota multicingulata Strophariaceae Neutral
Pholiota subflammans Strophariaceae Neutral
Pholiotina gracilenta Bolbitiaceae Neutral
Pleurella ardesiaca Cyphellaceae Neutral
Pleuroflammula praestans Crepidotaceae Neutral
Pleurotus australis Pleurotaceae New listing
Pleurotus djamor Pleurotaceae New listing
Pleurotus parsonsiae Pleurotaceae New listing
Pleurotus purpureo-olivaceus Pleurotaceae New listing
Pluteus concentricus Pluteaceae New listing
Pluteus pauperculus Pluteaceae New listing
Pluteus perroseus Pluteaceae Neutral
Pluteus velutinornatus Pluteaceae New listing
Porpolomopsis lewelliniae Hygrophoraceae SO New listing
Pouzarella farinosa Entolomataceae New listing
Psathyloma catervatim Hymenogastraceae New listing
Psathyrella echinata Psathyrellaceae New listing
Psilocybe makarorae Hymenogastraceae New listing
Psilocybe weraroa Hymenogastraceae New listing
Resupinatus vinosolividus Pleurotaceae New listing
Resupinatus violaceogriseus Pleurotaceae Neutral
Rhizocybe albida Lyophyllaceae Neutral
Rhodocollybia incarnata Omphalotaceae New listing
Rhodocollybia purpurata Omphalotaceae Neutral
Rhodocybe piperita Entolomataceae Neutral
Roridomyces austrororidus Mycenaceae New listing
Scytinotus longinquus Porotheleaceae Neutral
Simocybe phlebophora Crepidotaceae Neutral
Simocybe pruinata Crepidotaceae Neutral
Singerocybe clitocyboides Clitocybaceae New listing
Tricholoma elegans Tricholomataceae New listing
Tricholoma viridiolivaceum Tricholomataceae New listing
Tricholomopsis ornaticeps Typhulaceae DPR Neutral
Tricholomopsis scabra Typhulaceae New listing
Tubaria rufofulva Tubariaceae New listing
Tulostoma simulans Agaricaceae New listing
Tympanella galanthina Strophariaceae New listing
Xeromphalina leonina Mycenaceae Neutral
Boletes (16)
Austroboletus niveus Boletaceae New listing

42 Cooper et al. 2022 – Conservation status of non-lichenised fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021
Table 8 continued
Continued on next page
ASSESSMENT NAME FAMILY CRITERIA | QUALIFIERS STATUS CHANGE
Austroboletus novae-zelandiae Boletaceae New listing
Austropaxillus mcnabbii Serpulaceae New listing
Austropaxillus nothofagi Serpulaceae New listing
Austropaxillus squarrosus Serpulaceae New listing
Boletus leptospermi Boletaceae New listing
Calostoma fuscum Calostomataceae New listing
Calostoma rodwayi Calostomataceae New listing
Chalciporus aurantiacus Boletaceae Better
Fistulinella violaceipora Boletaceae New listing
Hygrophoropsis coacta Hygrophoropsidaceae New listing
Phylloporus novae-zelandiae Boletaceae New listing
Tylopilus brunneus Boletaceae New listing
Xerocomus mcrobbii Boletaceae New listing
Xerocomus nothofagi Boletaceae New listing
Xerocomus squamulosus Boletaceae New listing
Russuloid fungi (33)
Lactarius clarkeae Russulaceae New listing
Lactarius tawai Russulaceae New listing
Lactarius umerensis Russulaceae New listing
Lactifluus sepiaceus Russulaceae New listing
Lentinellus castoreus Auriscalpiaceae New listing
Lentinellus crawfordiae Auriscalpiaceae New listing
Lentinellus novae-zelandiae Auriscalpiaceae Neutral
Lentinellus pulvinulus Auriscalpiaceae Neutral
Lentinellus subargillaceus Auriscalpiaceae SO New listing
Russula acrolamellata Russulaceae New listing
Russula atroviridis Russulaceae New listing
Russula australis Russulaceae New listing
Russula cremeoochracea Russulaceae New listing
Russula griseobrunnea Russulaceae New listing
Russula griseostipitata Russulaceae New listing
Russula griseoviolacea Russulaceae New listing
Russula griseoviridis Russulaceae New listing
Russula inquinata Russulaceae Better
Russula kermesina Russulaceae New listing
Russula littorea Russulaceae Better
Russula macrocystidiata Russulaceae New listing
Russula miniata Russulaceae Better
Russula novae-zelandiae Russulaceae New listing
Russula papakaiensis Russulaceae Better
Russula pilocystidiata Russulaceae New listing
Russula pseudoareolata Russulaceae New listing
Russula purpureotincta Russulaceae New listing
Russula rimulosa Russulaceae New listing
Russula roseopileata Russulaceae New listing
Russula roseostipitata Russulaceae New listing
Russula tawai Russulaceae New listing
Russula tricholomopsis Russulaceae New listing

43
New Zealand Threat Classification Series 38
ASSESSMENT NAME FAMILY CRITERIA | QUALIFIERS STATUS CHANGE
Russula umerensis Russulaceae New listing
Taxonomically unresolved (8)
Agarics (7)
Amanita drummondii Amanitaceae SO New listing
Campanella sp. ‘Ashurst (PDD 106900)’ Marasmiaceae New listing
Campanella sp. ‘Pureora (PDD 96255)’ Marasmiaceae New listing
Laccaria sp. ‘Milnethorpe (PDD 105764)’ Hydnangiaceae New listing
Lepiota haemorrhagica Agaricaceae SO New listing
Ossicaulis sp. ‘Prices Valley (PDD 87161)’ Lyophyllaceae New listing
Porpoloma sp. ‘brunneogrisea (PDD 96890)’ Tricholomataceae New listing
Russuloid fungi (1)
Russula sp. ‘austrofoetida (PDD 79881)’ Russulaceae New listing
INTRODUCED AND NATURALISED (19)*
Taxonomically determinate (19)
Agarics (19)
Calocybe carnea Lyophyllaceae Neutral
Calocybe onychina Lyophyllaceae OL Neutral
Clitocybe fragrans Clitocybaceae SO Neutral
Clitocybe nebularis Clitocybaceae SO Neutral
Clitocybe rivulosa Clitocybaceae SO Neutral
Coprinopsis stercorea Psathyrellaceae Neutral
Cruentomycena viscidocruenta Mycenaceae Neutral
Entoloma congregatum Entolomataceae Neutral
Entoloma sericellum Entolomataceae Neutral
Gymnopus villosipes Omphalotaceae Neutral
Lepiota alopochroa Agaricaceae Neutral
Lepiota grangei Agaricaceae OL Neutral
Lepista luscina Clitocybaceae Neutral
Mycena filopes Mycenaceae SO Neutral
Mycena miriamae Mycenaceae Neutral
Mycena olivaceomarginata Mycenaceae Neutral
Mycena sanguinolenta Mycenaceae Neutral
Protostropharia semiglobata Strophariaceae SO Neutral
Volvariella surrecta Pluteaceae Better
* Only taxa that were listed in Hitchmough (2002) and have since been identified as exotic are reported as Introduced and Naturalised in this
assessment; all other exotic taxa of fungi are omitted.
Table 8 continued

44 Cooper et al. 2022 – Conservation status of non-lichenised fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021
4.2 NZTCS qualifiers, categories and criteria used in this
assessment
4.2.1 Qualifiers
The qualifiers used in this assessment are abbreviated as follows:
CD Conservation Dependent (CDB indicates the need for only good biosecurity)
CI Climate Impact
CR Conservation Research Needed
De Designated
DPR Data Poor Recognition
DPS Data Poor Size
DPT Data Poor Trend
EF Extreme Fluctuations
IE Island Endemic
Inc Increasing
OL One Location
PD Partial Decline
PF Population Fragmentation
RF Recruitment Failure
RR Range Restricted
SO Secure Overseas
Sp Sparse
TO Threatened Overseas
Further details about each of these can be found at https://nztcs.org.nz/home.
4.2.2 Categories and criteria
Data Deficient
Taxa that cannot be assessed due to a lack of current information about their distribution
and abundance. It is hoped that listing such taxa will stimulate research to find out the true
category (for a fuller definition, see Townsend et al. (2008)).
Threatened
NATIONALLY CRITICAL
A – very small population (natural or unnatural)
A(1) <250 mature individuals
A(2) ≤2 sub-populations, ≤200 mature individuals in the larger sub-population
A(3) Total area of occupancy ≤1ha (0.01km)
B – small population with a high ongoing or forecast decline of 50–70%
B(1) 250–1000 mature individuals
B(2) ≤5 sub-populations, ≤300 mature individuals in the largest sub-population
B(3) Total area of occupancy ≤10 ha (0.1km)
C – population (irrespective of size or number of sub-populations) with a very high ongoing
or forecast decline of >70%
C Predicted decline >70%

45
New Zealand Threat Classification Series 38
NATIONALLY ENDANGERED
A – small population that has a low to high ongoing or forecast decline of 10–50%
A(1) 250–1000 mature individuals
A(2) ≤5 sub-populations, ≤300 mature individuals in the largest sub-population
A(3) Total area of occupancy ≤10ha (0.1km)
B – small, stable population (unnatural)
B(1) 250–1000 mature individuals
B2) ≤5 sub-populations, ≤300 mature individuals in the largest sub-population
B(3) Total area of occupancy ≤10ha (0.1km)
C – moderate population and high ongoing or forecast decline of 50–70%
C(1) 1000–5000 mature individuals
C(2) ≤15 sub-populations, ≤500 mature individuals in the largest sub-population
C(3) Total area of occupancy ≤100ha (1km)
NATIONALLY VULNERABLE
A – small population (unnatural), increasing >10%
A(1) 250–1000 mature individuals
A(2) ≤5 sub-populations, ≤300 mature individuals in the largest sub-population
A(3) Total area of occupancy ≤10ha (0.1km)
B – moderate population (unnatural), stable ±10%
B(1) 1000–5000 mature individuals
B(2) ≤15 sub-populations, ≤500 mature individuals in the largest sub-population
B(3) Total area of occupancy ≤100ha (1km)
C – moderate population with low to high ongoing or forecast decline of 10–50%
C(1) 1000–5000 mature individuals
C(2) ≤15 sub-populations, ≤500 mature individuals in the largest sub-population
C(3) Total area of occupancy ≤100ha (1km)
D – moderate to large population with moderate to high ongoing or forecast decline
of30–70%
D(1) 5000–20000 mature individuals
D(2) ≤15 sub-populations, ≤1000 mature individuals in the largest sub-population
D(3) Total area of occupancy ≤1000ha (10km)
E – large population with high ongoing or forecast decline of 50–70%
E(1) 20000–100000 mature individuals
E(2) Total area of occupancy ≤10000ha (100km)
At Risk
NATURALLY UNCOMMON
Taxa whose distributions are confined to specific geographical areas or that occur within
naturally small and widely scattered populations, where these distributions are not the result of
human disturbance.
Not Threatened
Resident native taxa that have large, stable populations.
Introduced and Naturalised
Taxa that have become naturalised in the wild after being deliberately or accidentally
introduced into Aotearoa New Zealand by human agency.

46 Cooper et al. 2022 – Conservation status of non-lichenised fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021
5. Acknowledgements
We acknowledge Jeremy Rolfe for his assistance in interpreting the NZTCS categories and
criteria, and Nikki Pindur for reviewing an earlier version of this report. This assessment
has benefitted greatly from the data provided by attendees at the annual foray of the Fungal
Network of New Zealand (FUNNZ) and from the thousands of citizen scientists contributing
toiNaturalist records and identifications.
6. References
Dahlberg, A.; Mueller, G. 2011: Applying IUCN red-listing criteria for assessing and reporting on the conservation
status of fungal species. Fungal Ecology 4: 147–162.
de Lange, P.; Blanchon, D.; Knight, A.; Elix, J.; Lucking, R.; Frogley, K.; Harris, A.; Cooper, J.; Rolfe, J. 2018: Conservation
status of New Zealand indigenous lichens and lichenicolous fungi, 2018. New Zealand Threat Classification
Series 27. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 64 p.
www.doc.govt.nz/globalassets/documents/science-and-technical/nztcs27entire.pdf
Hitchmough, R. (comp.) 2002: New Zealand Threat Classification System lists 2002. Threatened Species Occasional
Publication 23. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 210 p.
www.doc.govt.nz/globalassets/documents/science-and-technical/tsop23pre.pdf
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) 2012: IUCN Red List categories and criteria. Version 3.1,
second edition. IUCN, Gland and Cambridge. 32 p. www.iucnredlist.org/resources/categories-and-criteria
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) 2019: Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and
Criteria. Version 14. Retrieved from www.iucnredlist.org/resources/redlistguidelines.
Johnston, P.; Cooper, J. 2012: Data deficient non-rust pathogenic fungi. Investigation No. 4360 Landcare Research
Contract Report: LC1010. Prepared for the Department of Conservation. 25 p.
Johnston, P.; Park, D.; Dickie, I.;Walbert, K. 2010: Using molecular techniques to combine taxonomic and ecological
data for fungi: reviewing the Data Deficient fungi list, 2009. reviewing the Data Deficient fungi list. Science for
Conservation 306. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 31 p.
www.doc.govt.nz/globalassets/documents/science-and-technical/sfc306entire.pdf
May, T.; Cooper, J.; Dahlberg, A.; Furci, G.; Minter, D.; Mueller, G.; Pouliot, A.; Yang, Z. 2019: Recognition of the
discipline of conservation mycology. Conservation Biology 33: 733–736.
Molloy, J.; Bell, B.; Clout, M.; de Lange, P.; Gibbs, G.; Given, D.; Norton, D.; Smith, N.; Stephens, T. 2002: Classifying
species according to threat of extinction. A system for New Zealand. Threatened Species Occasional
Publication 22. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 26 p.
www.doc.govt.nz/globalassets/documents/science-and-technical/tsop22.pdf
Nilsen, A.; Wang, X.; Soop, K.; Cooper, J.; Ridley, G.; Wallace, M.; Summerfield, T.C.; Brown, C.M.; Orlovich, D. 2020:
Purple haze: cryptic purple sequestrate Cortinarius in New Zealand. Mycologia 112: 588–605.
Rolfe, J.; Hitchmough, R.; Michel, P.; Makan, T.; Cooper, J.; de Lange, P.J.; Townsend, A.J.; Duy, C.A.J.; Miskelly, C.M.;
Molloy, J. in press: New Zealand Threat Classification System manual 2021. Part 1: Assessments. Department of
Conservation, Wellington. 45 p.
Rolfe, J.: Makan, T.; Tait, A. 2021: Supplement to the New Zealand Threat Classification System 2008: new
qualifiers and amendments to qualifier definitions, 2021. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 9 p.
www.doc.govt.nz/globalassets/documents/science-and-technical/nztcs-supplement-2021.pdf
Townsend, A.J.; de Lange, P.J.; Duy, C.A.J.; Miskelly, C.M.; Molloy, J.; Norton, D.A. 2008:
New Zealand Threat Classification System manual. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 35 p.
www.doc.govt.nz/globalassets/documents/science-and-technical/sap244.pdf


47
New Zealand Threat Classification Series 38
7. Glossary of terms as applied to fungi in
this publication
agaric Common name for a fungus with a mushroom-like fruiting body that
produces spores from gills on the underside of the cap; many are
members of Agaricales.
bolete Common name for a fungus with a fleshy, mushroom-like fruiting body
that produces spores from a spongy layer of tubes opening as pores on
the underside of the cap; members ofBoletales.
commensal A close and enduring association between a fungus and host where the
fungus benefits without causing harm to the host.
endophyte A fungus that lives inside a host plant for at least some of its lifecycle
without showing visible signs of infection or disease.
fungarium A curated collection of fungal specimens that is typically preserved by
drying, along with associated data.
heterotroph An organism that is unable to produce its own food, gaining its
nutrition from other sources of organic matter such as plants, animals
or other fungi.
lichenicolous fungus A fungus that lives exclusively on or in a lichen as its host; mostly occur
as parasites but some may form a commensal or saprophytic association.
lichenised fungus A fungus that lives as a partner with an alga or cyanobacterium to
form a composite organism known as a lichen. Lichens are classified
according to the fungal name.
macrofungus A common term for a fungus with a fruiting body that is readily visible
to the naked eye.
mycorrhizal A symbiotic to weakly parasitic relationship between a fungus and
the roots of a host plant, whereby fungal hyphae (branched cellular
threads) interact with root cells to enable the transfer of water and
minerals to the root and plant carbohydrates to the fungus. In Aotearoa
New Zealand, mycorrhizal fungi with mushroom-like fruiting bodies are
restricted to hosts of tea tree and beech.
parasitic A close relationship between a fungus and a host plant, animal or other
fungus in which the parasitic fungus lives on or in the host causing a
disease or other harm.
pathogenic Similar to parasitic but typically refers to a fungus that causes disease.
russuloid Fungi with mushroom-like fruiting bodies that are distinctive in texture
when fresh, breaking like chalk instead of being flexible or fibrous;
members of Russulales.
saprophytic A mode of nutrition where the fungus absorbs nutrients from dead
organic matter.
secotioid A fungus that forms partially closed mushroom-like fruiting bodies that
do not open up to disperse spores and instead may rely on animals for
dispersal; most are classified asagarics, boletes and russuloid fungi.
sporocarp Another name for the fruiting body of a fungus in which spores are produced.
symbiotic A close and enduring association between a fungus and its host that
can be commensal, parasitic or of mutual benefit.

48 Cooper et al. 2022 – Conservation status of non-lichenised fungi in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021
Appendix 1
A rapid assessment methodology
A triage process was developed to facilitate the rapid preliminary assessment of large numbers
of fungal taxa. At this preliminary stage, the process disregards the problematic concepts of
population size and numbers of mature individuals as they apply to fungi, instead focusing on
more easily accessible data of known occurrences and distributions. Application of the process
relies on the ability to visualise aggregated and geo-referenced occurrence data. An important
pre-requisite is that taxon names associated with occurrence records are unified to conform
with those presented by the New Zealand Organisms Register (NZOR).10 Candidate taxa that
were considered to have a potential elevated conservation status based on this assessment
were carried forward into the formal assessment process. In addition, some taxa that were
excluded by this preliminary assessment were also added to the formal assessment process by
the expertpanel.
A taxon may be categorised as Data Deficient for several dierent reasons. The process
captures important information about why it is not possible to carry out a detailed assessment
for each taxon.
Support for visualising taxon distribution data
There are several visual tools that can be used to assess the distributions of taxa:
•The Atlas of Living Australia – This brings together data in the New Zealand
Fungarium (PDD)11 and the Australia fungaria. It is especially useful because setting
the map scale to 50 km and the record spot size to 12 allows the number of locations
(asdefined in the key) to be assessed. Data should be viewed in the ‘interactive viewer’.
https://bie.ala.org.au/
•Geographic information systems (GIS) layers available for viewing in applications
such as QGIS, together with point location data from PDD, International Collection of
Microorganisms from Plants (ICMP)12 and iNaturalist data (a curated subset). A QGIS13
project facilitates the viewing of species distributions using the criteria in the key and
the visualisation against important base maps, such as the Land Cover Database,14
DOCecological regions and protected areas. Use of QGIS for visualisation requires
abasic level of GIS expertise.
•GBIF allows the global status to be assessed, and includes records from all available
sources, including overseas fungaria, iNaturalist, etc. The GBIF data for the species
should be selected and mapped. It is critical to assess the quality of global GBIF data.
www.gbif.org/occurrence/search
•iNaturalist may show additional records that have not reached Research Grade status
and so have not been exported to GBIF. This is especially true of rare or dicult
fungal species, where multiple endorsements of identifications are dicult to obtain.
https://www.inaturalist.org/
 https://nzor.org.nz
 https://scd.landcareresearch.co.nz/Search?collectionId=PDD
 https://scd.landcareresearch.co.nz/Search?collectionId=ICMP
 www.qgis.org/
 https://lris.scinfo.org.nz/layer/104400-lcdb-v50-land-cover-database-version-50-mainland-new-zealand/

49
New Zealand Threat Classification Series 38
Rapid pre-selection of candidate taxa
Table A1.1. The decision key.
0Resource available to assess the taxon in detail 1
0’ Resource not available to assess the taxon in detail Data Deficient
1Introduced Exclude – not assessed
1’ Indigenous or endemic 2
2Taxon requires significant expertise for correct identification (panel view) 3
2’ Taxon likely to be both collected and correctly identified by non-experts 9
3Taxonomic status uncertain (panel view) Data Deficient
3’ Taxonomic status certain 4
4Representative distribution data available (panel view) 8
4’ Representative distribution data not available 5
5Recent (< 10 year) records of newly described / newly recorded taxon Data Deficient
5’ Records over ≥ 10-year timespan 6
6National expertise available 7
6’ National expertise not available Not assessed
7Expert opinion indicates taxon is likely to be widespread, nationally or
globally, regardless of sparse records (a consequence of under-sampling)
Not Threatened
7’ Expert opinion indicates taxon is not widespread, but expertise
insufficiently resourced to collect representative data
Data Deficient
8Expertise insufficiently resourced to assess available data Not assessed
8’ Expertise available to assess available data 9
9Possesses a strict biotrophic association with an organism that is itself
listed as Threatened or At Risk
Status same as associate
or result of independent
assessment, whichever is higher
9’ Without a biotrophic association, or associated organism is Not Threatened 10
10 Indigenous taxon where overseas populations have been assessed as
Least Concern
Not Threatened
10’ Endemic taxon, or indigenous and not assessed as Least Concern overseas 11
11 No records in the last 50 years Candidate Extinct
11’ Records in the last 50 years 12
12 Known from only one or two localities
(Localities are here defined as the number of separate units when
all point sites are mapped with a 20-km-diameter buffer. However,
Department of Conservation ecological regions are taken as a final
boundary on this buffering, i.e. aggregations that span two regions
count as two locations (use ALA mapper/QGIS).)
13
12’ Known from more than two localities 14
13 Total area of occupancy within locations ≤ 50 ha (0.5 km²)
(Area of occupancy is defined as the sum of the area bounded by
recorded point locations with constant land use over the recorded period,
each with a 200-m-radius buffer (c. 12 ha per isolated point) (estimated by
inspection of the mapped data, or preferably using QGIS).)
Candidate Nationally Critical
13’ Total area of occupancy within locations > 10 ha Candidate Nationally
Endangered
14 Known from five or less localities 15
14’ Known from more than five localities 16
15 Locality land use / ecosystem / habitat / host with past or predicted reduction Candidate Nationally Critical
15’ Locality land use / ecosystem / habitat / host stable Candidate Nationally Vulnerable
16 Known from 15 or less localities 17
16’ Known from more than 15 localities 18
17 Locality land use / ecosystem / habitat / host with past or predicted reduction Candidate Nationally
Endangered
17’ Locality land use / ecosystem / habitat / host stable Candidate Nationally Vulnerable
18 Area of occupancy at each location ≤ 50 ha
or restricted to one or two contiguous ecoregions (Range Restricted)
Candidate Naturally Uncommon
18’ Area of occupancy > 50 ha or present in three or more ecoregions Not Threatened