4.6 Article

The Australasian species of Lactarius subgenus Gerardii (Russulales)

Journal

FUNGAL DIVERSITY
Volume 52, Issue 1, Pages 141-167

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13225-011-0111-3

Keywords

Basidiomycota; Lactifluus; Plinthogalus; Taxonomy; Phylogeny; Asia

Categories

Funding

  1. Foundation of Scientific Research-Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen)
  2. King Leopold III Foundation
  3. Institute for the Promotion of Innovation through Science and Technology (IWT-Vlaanderen)
  4. National Science Foundation (USA) [DEB-0118776]
  5. Chiang Mai University
  6. National Natural Science Foundation of China [NSFC 30970020, 30300002]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper provides an overview and identification key of the Australasian species of Lactarius subg. Gerardii. A molecular phylogeny based on the nuc DNA markers ITS, LSU and rpb2, combined with detailed morphological observations resulted in the delimitation of 12 strongly supported and morphologically recognizable species. Five new agaricoid species are described here: Lactarius hora, L. coniculus, L. limbatus, L. leae and L. leonardii. Other agaricoid species belonging to subg. Gerardii are L. atrovelutinus, L. bicolor, L. ochrogalactus and L. reticulatovenosus. Lactarius venosus is also considered as a member but could not be included in the molecular analysis. Two new pleurotoid species are discovered: L. genevievae and L. conchatulus, both close relatives of L. uyedae, but each with distinct characters. Their position within subg. Gerardii is supported in the phylogeny and by their microscopic characters. This study also confirms the existence of multiple cryptic species and species complexes for which species recognition or species delimitation remains problematic as is the case for the Australian species L. wirrabara. In general, detailed macroscopic and microscopic observations are needed to identify species of L. subg. Gerardii.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available