4.0 Article

Type studies in Russula subsection Lactarioideae from North America and a tentative key to North American species

期刊

CRYPTOGAMIE MYCOLOGIE
卷 34, 期 3, 页码 259-279

出版社

ADAC-CRYPTOGAMIE
DOI: 10.7872/crym.v34.iss2.2013.259

关键词

Identification key; morphology; Russula brevipes; R. inopina; R. romagnesiana; R. vesicatoria

类别

资金

  1. Slovak national grant [Vega 2/0028/11]
  2. EDIT Research Integration Grant [JPA 5 - IRG]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Detailed microscopical observations on four type specimens of Russula subsect. Lactarioideae from North America are presented and illustrated. As the result of our analyses, all four species are accepted as good species in Lactarioideae, although sometimes with slightly modified concept. R. brevipes is recognized by the rather short and often inflated cells in the pileipellis, large spores with spiny, subreticulate ornamentation and the distinctly amyloid suprahilar spot. Whether or not the European R. chloroides is a later synonym remains to be examined. R. inopina is characterized by filiform, flexuous-undulate terminal cells in the pileipellis, as well as on the gill edge, and it lacks shorter, mucronate pileocystidia. R. romagnesiana, originally described to replace the invalidly published, European R. chloroides var. parvispora, is here considered to be quite different from this European taxon and is accepted as distinct, native American species characterized by having equally small spores, frequently bicapitate pileocystidia near the pileus center as well as hyphal terminations with a glutinous sheath, but lacking distinct incrustations. R. vesicatoria is defined as a species of sandy Finals stands with crowded gills, large and clavate, obtuse to capitate, often thick-walled pileocystidia, very long and slender hyphal extremities and spores with an inamyloid suprahilar spot. A tentative key to all North American Lactarioideae introduces objective microscopic features for the identification of all recognized species in this group.

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