4.2 Article

Two new species of Xanthagaricus from Punjab, Pakistan

期刊

PHYTOTAXA
卷 583, 期 2, 页码 163-173

出版社

MAGNOLIA PRESS
DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.583.2.4

关键词

Agaricaceae; Deltas; Rhizomorphic mycelial mat; Utriform cheilocystidia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A fungal survey of the Indus Riverbed discovered two new taxa in the genus Xanthagaricus: Xanthagaricus punjabensis and Xanthagaricus kotadduensis. Phylogenetic analyses confirmed their placement within the genus, with X. punjabensis being closely related to X. Thailandensis and X. kotadduensis being closely related to X. omanicus. The unique characteristics of these new taxa were described, and their addition increased the known number of Xanthagaricus species from Pakistan to three.
Many basidiomata collected during a fungal survey of the Indus Riverbed revealed two new taxa in the genus Xanthagaricus. Phylogenetic analyses of the Internal Transcribed Spacers (ITS) & ribosomal Large Subunit (28S) have confirmed that these new species (namely Xanthagaricus punjabensis & Xanthagaricus kotadduensis) form a separate clade with a strong bootstrap value from the closest species of Xanthagaricus. The closest taxon to Xanthagaricus punjabensis is X. Thailandensis, while Xanthagaricus kotadduensis is closely related to X. omanicus. Xanthagaricus punjabensis is unique due to its umbonate disc, dull orange to light yellow lamellae, gray rhizomorphic mycelial mat at the base of stipe, presence of annulus, globose to subglobose basidiospore, narrowly utriform to utriform cheilocystidia, and clavate to broadly clavate caulocystidia. Our second new taxon, X. Kotadduensis, can be characterized by the absence of annulus, utriform to knobbed cheilocystidia, and oblong caulocystidia. Our results strongly support the placement of the new taxa within the genus Xanthagaricus and provide a unique insight into the phylogenetic relationships within this genus. With this addition, the number of known species of Xanthagaricus from Pakistan becomes three.

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

4.2
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