4.0 Article

Cortinarius subgenus Leprocybe (Agaricales) in New Zealand

期刊

NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF BOTANY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/0028825X.2022.2129077

关键词

Bihemispherical; Aureonarius; Cystinarius; taxonomy; South Pacific; 3 new species

资金

  1. Manaaki Whenua Biota Portfolio
  2. Science and Innovation Group of the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
  3. Marsden Fund Council [UOO1909]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cortinarius is the largest genus of mushrooms in the world with a cosmopolitan distribution. This article reviews the diversity of the subgenus Leprocybe in the Southern Hemisphere and proposes three new species. The classification of some species found in New Zealand needs further study to determine their position within the phylogeny of the family.
Cortinarius is the largest genus of Agaricales (mushrooms) in the world with a cosmopolitan distribution. All species are ectomycorrhizal. Cortinariaceae is a very diverse fungal family, recently split into ten genera, one of which is Cortinarius. The former genus Cortinarius s. lato, in its turn, was traditionally divided into 4-7 subgenera, of which one of the later additions is the subgenus Leprocybe. Here we review the diversity of Leprocybe in the Southern Hemisphere. Using a 4-locus molecular phylogeny, it is shown that all but one of M. Moser's original sections are represented in the South Pacific region, many of them in New Zealand. Several species sharing a morphology that may be designated 'leprocyboid' are found in the country. These are discussed, their taxonomy is analysed, and a key is provided. Three new species (Aureonarius ruficollybianus, Cortinarius stenophryx, and Cystinarius pseudoeutactus) are proposed. The leprocyboid Cortinarius sect. Incensi, present in New Zealand, appears not to nest in any of the studied genera, but an analysis with more genes and a wider taxon sampling is required to clarify its position within the phylogeny of the family.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据