Next Article in Journal
Combination Therapy Should Be Reserved as Second-Line Treatment of Onychomycosis: A Systematic Review of Onychomycosis Clinical Trials
Previous Article in Journal
Fungal Allergen and Mold Allergy Diagnosis: Role and Relevance of Alternaria alternata Alt a 1 Protein Family
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Rubinosporus auriporus gen. et sp. nov. (Boletaceae: Xerocomoideae) from Tropical Forests of Thailand, Producing Unusual Dark Ruby Spore Deposits

by
Santhiti Vadthanarat
1,2,3,
Olivier Raspé
3,* and
Saisamorn Lumyong
1,2,4,*
1
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
2
Research Center of Microbial Diversity and Sustainable Utilization, Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
3
School of Science, Mae Fah Luang University, Chiang Rai 57100, Thailand
4
Academy of Science, The Royal Society of Thailand, Bangkok 10300, Thailand
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Fungi 2022, 8(3), 278; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8030278
Submission received: 8 February 2022 / Revised: 1 March 2022 / Accepted: 2 March 2022 / Published: 9 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Topic Fungal Diversity)

Abstract

:
Rubinosporus, a new bolete genus from tropical forests of Thailand is introduced with R. auriporus as the type species. The genus is unique among Xerocomoideae in producing dark ruby spore deposits. It can be differentiated from all other Boletaceae genera by the following combination of characters: pileus surface evenly covered with matted tomentum; stipe surface with evenly scattered minute squamules; golden yellow tubular hymenophore, which is relatively thin especially when young; unchanging surfaces and context when bruised or cut; smooth, broadly ellipsoid basidiospores; and dark ruby spore deposits. The Boletaceae-wide and Xerocomoideae-wide phylogenetic analyses based on four-gene data sets (atp6, cox3, rpb2, and tef1) support Rubinosporus as monophyletic and places it in Boletaceae subfamily Xerocomoideae. Full descriptions and illustrations of the new genus and species are presented.

1. Introduction

The family Boletaceae has been widely studied for over one hundred years. The former traditional taxonomy was based only on morphological characters. However, since molecular techniques and phylogenetic analyses have been developed and used as an advanced tool for the modern concepts in systematics and taxonomy, many genera, and species in Boletaceae have been recognized and described as new, e.g., [1,2,3]. In the last five years only, nine new Boletaceae genera have been described worldwide, namely Afrocastellanoa M.E. Smith & Orihara, Cacaoporus Raspé & Vadthanarat, Carolinigaster M.E. Sm. & S. Cruz, Erythrophylloporus Ming Zhang & T.H. Li, Indoporus A. Parihar, K. Das, Hembrom & Vizzini, Ionosporus O. Khmelnitsky, Phylloporopsis Angelini, A. Farid, Gelardi, M.E. Smith, Costanzo, & Vizzini, Spongispora G. Wu, S.M.L. Lee, E. Horak & Zhu L. Yang, and Longistriata Sulzbacher, Orihara, Grebenc, M.P. Martín & Baseia [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. Five of those genera were described from tropical to subtropical Asia, where high fungal diversity has been reported, but yet, remains poorly known to science, e.g., [13,14].
Based on the current multiple gene phylogenies, the Boletaceae are classified into six sub-families and one phylogenetically unsupported group [2,3]. Xerocomoideae is one of the six sub-families, which consists of nine genera namely Alessioporus Gelardi, Vizzini & Simonini, Aureoboletus Pouzar, Boletellus Murrill, Heimioporus E. Horak, Hemileccinum Šutara, Hourangia Xue T. Zhu & Zhu L. Yang, Phylloporus Quél., Pulchroboletus Gelardi, Vizzini & Simonini, and Xerocomus Quél [2,3]. Two additional genera, Corneroboletus and Sinoboletus, were also described in the subfamily but were later synonymized with Hemileccinum and Aureoboletus, respectively [3]. Typical characters of this subfamily are boletoid or phylloporoid basidiomata; dry or viscid pileus with smooth or subtomentose to tomentose pellis; absent or rarely present veil; yellowish to yellow context; often bluing or sometimes redding or unchanging; smooth or ornamented stipe surface; basidiospores with bacillate, reticulate, longitudinally striate, or pitted ornamentations, or occasionally smooth; spore deposit with more or less olive-brown tint [2,3,15].
We have carried out surveys of the diversity of boletes in Thailand since 2010. Some collections with striking morphological characters were made and carefully studied. The collections combined typical characters of two genera that are widely distributed in tropical to subtropical regions, Aureoboletus with a golden yellow hymenium, and Baorangia G. Wu & Zhu L. Yang, which has a thin hymenophoral layer [3,16,17]. However, the collections showed a surprising dark ruby spore deposit, which is clearly distinct from the two genera and other genera in Boletaceae. Therefore, family-wide and subfamily-wide phylogenies were performed and showed that the collections belong in a generic lineage different from other genera in Boletaceae. Consequently, a new genus and a new species are introduced, with full descriptions and illustrations.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Specimens Collecting

The specimens were collected during the rainy season, from May to June, between 2015 and 2017, in Chiang Mai Province, northern Thailand. The specimens were wrapped in aluminum foil and taken to the laboratory for morphological description. After the description of macroscopic characters, the specimens were dried in an electric drier at 45–50 °C for 24 h or until dried properly. Then, they were deposited in the following herbaria Chiang Mai University (CMUB), and Meise Botanic Garden (BR) [18].

2.2. Morphological Study

The macroscopic descriptions were made based on detailed field notes and photos of fresh basidiomata taken in the habitat and the laboratory. Color codes were given based on a Methuen Handbook of Colour [19]. Chemical solutions including 10% potassium hydroxide (KOH) and 28–30% ammonium hydroxide (NH4OH), were used to determine the chemical reactions (color reactions) of the pileus, pileus context, stipe, stipe context, and hymenophore. For the microscopical study, the dried specimens were observed using 5% KOH, NH4OH, Melzer’s reagent, or stained with 1% ammoniacal Congo red. A minimum of 50 basidiospores, 20 basidia, and 20 cystidia were randomly measured under a Nikon Eclipse Ni microscope using the NIS-Elements D software. The notation ‘[m/n/p]’ represents the number of basidiospores “m” measured from “n” basidiomata of “p” collections. Dimensions of microscopic structures are presented in the following format: (a–)b–c–d(–e), in which “c” represents the average, “b” the 5th percentile, “d” the 95th percentile, “a” the minimum, and “e” the maximum. Q, the length/width ratio, is presented in the same format. Section of the pileus surface was radially and perpendicularly cut to the surface at a point halfway between the center and margin of the pileus. Sections of stipitipellis were taken from halfway up the stipe and longitudinally cut perpendicularly to the surface. All microscopic features were drawn by freehand using an Olympus Camera Lucida model U−DA fitted to Olympus CX31 compound microscope. For scanning electron microscopy (SEM), a spore print was mounted onto an SEM stub with double-sided carbon tape. The sample was coated with gold, then examined and photographed with a JEOL JSM–5910 LV SEM (JEOL, Tokyo, Japan).

2.3. DNA Extraction, PCR Amplification and DNA Sequencing

Genomic DNA was extracted from about 10–15 mg of dried specimen or fresh tissue preserved in cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB), using a CTAB isolation procedure adapted from Doyle and Doyle [20]. Portions of the genes atp6, cox3, rpb2, and tef1 were amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and sequenced by Sanger sequencing. The primer pairs ATP6-1M40F/ATP6-2M [21], COX3M1-F/ COX3M1-R [11], bRPB2-6F/bRPB2-7.1R [22], and EF1-983F/EF1-2218R [23] were used to amplify atp6, cox3, rpb2, and tef1, respectively. PCR products were purified by adding 1 U of exonuclease I and 0.5 U FastAP alkaline phosphatase (Thermo Scientific, St. Leon-Rot, Germany) and incubated at 37 °C for 1 h, followed by inactivation at 80 °C for 15 min. Standard Sanger sequencing was performed in both directions by Macrogen with PCR primers, except for atp6, for which universal primers M13F-pUC(−40) and M13F(−20) were used; for tef1, additional sequencing was performed with two internal primers, EF1-1577F and EF1-1567R [23].

2.4. Alignment and Phylogeny Inference

The two reads of newly generated sequences were assembled in GENEIOUS Pro v. 6.0.6 (Biomatters). A Boletaceae-wide sequence dataset, including selected sequences representative of the whole family, downloaded from GenBank, was aligned using MAFFT [24] on the server accessed at http://mafft.cbrc.jp/alignment/server/ (accessed on 19 December 2021). For this dataset, the introns in rpb2 and tef1 were removed based on the amino acid sequence of previously published sequences. Maximum likelihood (ML) phylogenetic inference was performed using RAxML on the CIPRES web portal (RAxML-HPC2 on XSEDE) [25,26]. The phylogenetic tree was inferred by a single analysis with four partitions (one for each gene), using the general time reversible computerized adaptive testing (GTRCAT) model with 25 categories. The outgroup consisted of two Buchwaldoboletus and seven Chalciporus species from sub-family Chalciporoideae, based on previous phylogenies e.g., [1,2,3,11]. Statistical support of clades was obtained with 1000 rapid bootstrap replicates. For Bayesian Inference (BI), the best-fit model of substitution among those implementable in MrBayes was estimated separately for each region using jModeltest [27] on the CIPRES portal, based on the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). The selected models were HKY + I + G for atp6, GTR+I+G for cox3 and tef1 exons, and K80 + I + G for rpb2 exons. Partitioned Bayesian analysis was performed with MrBayes 3.2.6 software for Windows [28]. Two runs of five chains were run for 11,000,000 generations and sampled every 1000 generations. The chain temperature was decreased to 0.02 to improve convergence. At the end of the run, the average deviation of split frequencies was 0.008614. A total of 8252 trees were used to construct a 50% majority rule consensus tree and calculate the Bayesian posterior probabilities (BPP).
For a subfamily Xerocomoideae-wide tree, all selected taxa in Xerocomoideae were aligned using the MAFFT online software (introns included). ML phylogenetic tree was inferred by a single analysis with five partitions (atp6, cox3, rpb2 exons, tef1 exons, and intron of rpb2 + introns of tef1) (one for each gene), outgroup were four Butyriboletus species in Pulveroboletus group, using the same analytical software and model used for family Boletaceae-wide tree. For BI, the same analytical software for family Boletaceae-wide tree was used. However, the selected models were GTR+I+G for atp6, cox3, and intron of rpb2 + introns of tef1, K80 + I + G for rpb2 exons, and SYM+I+G for tef1 exons. Two runs of five chains were sampled every 200 generations and stopped after 800,000 generations. At the end of the run, the average deviation of split frequencies was 0.007928. A total of 2709 trees were used to construct a 50% majority rule consensus tree and calculate the BPPs.

3. Results

3.1. Phylogenetic Analyses

A total of fourteen sequences were newly generated in this study and deposited in GenBank (Table 1). For the Boletaceae-wide tree, the alignment contained 776 sequences comprising four genes (162 for atp6, 133 for cox3, 231 for rpb2, 250 for tef1) from 257 voucher specimens corresponding to 252 taxa, and was 2946 characters long (TreeBase number: 28,349). The sequences of Rubinosporus voucher SV0934 (atp6 and cox3) were not added to the analyses because they were identical to the holotype (SV0090). Maximum likelihood and BI trees of the combined four-gene dataset were similar in topology, without any supported conflict (BS ≥ 70% and PP ≥ 0.90). The phylogram of RAxML bipartition (Figure 1) retrieved the six subfamily clades, namely Austroboletoideae (BS = 99% and PP = 1), Boletoideae (BS = 54% and PP = 0.93), Chalciporoideae (BS = 100% and PP = 1), Leccinoideae (BS = 99% and PP = 1), Xerocomoideae (BS = 99% and PP = 1), and Zangioideae (BS = 100% and PP = 1). The Pulveroboletus group of Wu et al. [2,3] was not monophyletic, like in previously published phylogenies. However, the monophyly of each genus in this group was highly supported. The selected Rubinosporus auriporus specimens were monophyletic (BS = 100% and PP = 1) and clustered in the highly supported Xerocomoideae clade.
The Xerocomoideae-wide alignment contained 243 sequences comprising four genes (42 for atp6, 38 for cox3, 81 for rpb2, 82 for tef1) from 86 voucher specimens corresponding to 82 taxa and was 3176 characters long (TreeBase number: 28350). ML and BI trees showed similar topologies without any supported conflict. The phylogram of RAxML bipartition (Figure 2) retrieved nine highly supported generic clades, for which BS = 100% and PP = 1 for six clades, Aureoboletus, Pulchroboletus, Heimioporus, Hemileccinum, Hourangia, and the new genus Rubinosporus, while the others had only slightly less support, Boletellus (BS = 85% and PP = 1), Phylloporus (BS = 99% and PP = 1), and Xerocomus (BS = 75% and PP = 1).

3.2. Taxonomy

Rubinosporus Vadthanarat, Raspé & Lumyong, gen. nov.
Typus generis—Rubinosporus auriporus Vadthanarat, Raspé & Lumyong
MycoBank—MB840262
Etymology—from Latin “rubineus” and “sporus” referring to its production of dark ruby spore deposits.
Diagnosis—Distinguished from the other genera in Boletaceae by the following combination of characters: pileus surface even, with matted, cracked tomentum; stipe surface even, scattered with minute squamules, golden yellow tubular hymenophore which is relatively thin, especially when young; unchanging surfaces and context when touched or cut; smooth, broadly ellipsoid basidiospores; dark ruby spore deposit.
Description—Basidiomata stipitate-pileate with tubular hymenophore, medium-sized. Pileus hemispherical at first then convex to plano-convex or applanate in age; margin inflexed to deflexed, exact to slightly exceeding; surface even to subrugulose at places, dull, greyish red to pastel red to reddish brown, with greyish yellow, greyish orange to brownish orange to brown matted, cracked tomentum; context firm, off-white to yellowish white, unchanging when cut. Stipe central, terete, or sometimes slightly compressed, cylindrical or subcylindrical with slightly wider base; surface topography even, yellowish white to pinkish white at places, with scattered yellowish white to orange to light brown minute squamules, to bright yellow near the top; basal mycelium yellowish white; context solid, off-white to yellowish white, unchanging when cut. Hymenophore tubulate, narrowly adnate, mostly segmentiform to subventricose. Tubes relatively thin, especially when young, golden yellow becoming orange-yellow, separable from the pileus context, unchanging when bruised. Pores topography subirregular, irregularly arranged, roundish to slightly angular composite pores; golden yellow at first, golden yellow to greyish yellow with irregularly reddish brown at places in age, unchanging when touched. Odor mild fungoid. Taste mild to slightly sweet. Spore print dark ruby in mass. Basidiospores broadly ellipsoid, thin-walled, smooth, yellowish to brownish hyaline in water, yellowish hyaline in KOH or NH4OH, yellowish to reddish in Melzer’s reagent (weakly dextrinoid). Basidia 4-spored, clavate without basal clamp connection. Cheilocystidia clavate with rounded apex or fusiform to broadly fusiform or utriform, thin-walled, hyaline to yellowish hyaline in KOH or NH4OH. Pleurocystidia fusiform with narrower apex, thin-walled, hyaline to yellowish hyaline in KOH or NH4OH. Pileipellis a tomentum to intricate trichoderm, composed of moderately interwoven thin-walled hyphae; terminal cells cylindrical with obtuse apex, hyaline to yellowish at places in KOH. Stipitipellis a tomentum composed of loosely to moderately interwoven cylindrical hyphae, anastomosing at places, scattered with groups of rising cells to clusters of basidiole-like cells mixed with caulocystidia, and rarely with caulobasidia, hyaline to yellowish hyaline in KOH or NH4OH. Clamp connections were not seen in any tissue.
Known distribution—Currently known only from Thailand.
Notes—The morphologically closely resembling genera are Aureoboletus and Baorangia, the former sharing the bright yellow to golden yellow hymenium, and the latter sharing the thin hymenophore [3,17,31]. However, Rubinosporus is easily distinguished from those two genera by the dark ruby spore deposit, which has an olive brown tint in Aureoboletus and Baorangia.
Rubinosporus auriporus Vadthanarat, Raspé & Lumyong, sp. nov. Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5
MycoBank—MB840263
Holotype—THAILAND, Chiang Mai Province, Mae Taeng District, 19°06’37.5” N–98°44’40.0” E, elev. 1,090 m, 2 June 2015, Santhiti Vadthanarat, SV0090 (CMUB; isotype BR).
Etymology—from Latin referring to the golden yellow hymenophore.
Description—Basidiomata medium-sized. Pileus (14–)33–92(–174) mm in diameter, hemispherical at first then convex to plano-convex or applanate in age; margin inflexed to deflexed, exact to slightly exceeding somewhere (0.5 mm); surface even to subrugulose at places, dull, greyish red to pastel red to reddish brown (8E5–6, 9B/C/D5–7, 9E6), at first densely to moderately covered with greyish yellow, greyish orange to brownish orange to brown (4B3–5, 5B3–5, 5C3–6, 5D3–4, 6E7–8) matted, cracked tomentum becoming less in age; context 4–15 mm thick half-way to the margin, firm, off-white to yellowish white (1A1–2), occasionally pale yellow (1A2–3) above the hymenium or under pileipellis, unchanging when cut. Stipe 37–109 × 11–45 mm, central, terete or slightly compressed sometimes, mostly cylindrical to cylindrical with slightly wider base; surface topography even, slightly shiny, yellowish white (2A2–3, 3A2) with pinkish white (8A2) at places, scattered with yellowish white (2A2–3, 3A2) to orange to light brown (5A/B7, 7D7–8) minute squamules, to bright yellow (2–3A7) near the top; basal mycelium little developed, yellowish white (2A2); context solid, off-white to yellowish white (1A1–2), even to virgate at places, unchanging when cut. Hymenophore tubulate, narrowly adnate, mostly segmentiform to subventricose. Tubes (0.8)2–4.5(7) mm long half-way to the margin, relatively thin when young 1/4 to 1/5 times then 1/2 to 1/3 times that of the pileus context when mature, golden yellow (3A7) becoming orange yellow (4B7), separable from the pileus context, unchanging when bruised. Pores 0.4–0.8(1) mm wide at mid-radius, topography subirregular, irregularly arranged, composite pores composed of roundish to slightly angular pores in age, golden yellow (3–4A8) at first, golden yellow to greyish yellow (4A/B/C7) with irregularly reddish brown (8E/F8) at places in age, unchanging when touched. Odor mild fungoid. Taste mild to slightly sweet. Spore print dark ruby (12F7) in mass.
Macrochemical reactions: KOH, yellow to orange on cap, stipe, and hymenium; none or yellowish on pileus context and stipe context; NH4OH, yellow to orange to brown on cap, stipe and hymenophore; none or yellowish on pileus context, stipe context and hymenium.
Spores [293/5/2] (6.5–)7.1–7.9–8.7(–9.3) × (4.4–)5.2–5.8–6.4(–6.9) µm Q = (1.19–)1.25–1.36–1.52(–1.68). From the type (7–)7.1–7.7–8.6(–9) × (4.4–)4.8–5.7–6.5(–6.8) µm, Q = (1.19–)1.23–1.36–1.53(–1.66), N = 60, broadly ellipsoid, thin-walled, smooth, yellowish to brownish hyaline in water, yellowish hyaline in KOH or NH4OH, yellowish to reddish in Melzer’s reagent (inamyloid to weakly dextrinoid). Basidia 4-spored, (18–)19–24–27(–28) × (9–)9–11–12(–12) µm, clavate without basal clamp connection, hyaline to yellowish hyaline in KOH or NH4OH; sterigmata up to 4 µm long. Cheilocystidia of two types, (1) clavate with rounded apex, frequent, (14–)15–25–36(–38) × (9–)10–12–16(–16) µm, thin-walled, hyaline to yellowish hyaline in KOH or NH4OH, and (2) fusiform to broadly fusiform or utriform, frequent, (21–)22–34–41(–41) × (10–)10–12–15(–16) µm, thin-walled, hyaline to yellowish hyaline in KOH or NH4OH. Pleurocystidia (29–)30–47–58(–61) × (9–)9–12–16(–18) µm, frequent and more near the pores, fusiform with narrower apex, thin-walled, hyaline to yellowish hyaline in KOH or NH4OH. Hymenophoral trama divergent, 57–106 µm wide, with 16–32 µm wide of subregular mediostratum, composed of cylindrical, 4–12 µm wide hyphae, slightly yellowish to hyaline in KOH or NH4OH. Pileipellis a tomentum to intricate trichoderm, 125–230 µm thick, composed of moderately interwoven thin-walled hyphae; terminal cells 21–68 × 3.5–9 µm, cylindrical with obtuse apex, hyaline to yellowish at places in KOH. Pileus context made of strongly interwoven, thin-walled, hyaline hyphae, 7–23 µm wide, hyaline in KOH. Stipitipellis a tomentum composed of loosely to moderately interwoven cylindrical hyphae (3–9 µm wide), anastomosing at places, scattered with groups of rising cells to clusters of basidiole-like cells ((14–)15–23–38(–39) × (5–)6–8–10(–11) µm) mixed with two types of caulocystidia, and rarely with caulobasidia, 120–170 µm thick (including the height of rising cells), hyaline to yellowish hyaline in KOH or NH4OH; terminal cells 24–81 × 5–9 µm, more or less parallel to the surface of the stipe, thin-walled, elongated cylindrical with obtuse to slightly swollen apex. Caulocystidia of two types, 1) fusiform, not frequent, (25–)26–45–72(–76) × (9–)9–14–18(–18) µm, thin-walled, hyaline to yellowish hyaline in KOH, and 2) broadly clavate, not frequent, (14–)14–23–34(–34) × (10–)10–15–21(–21) µm, thin-walled, hyaline to yellowish hyaline in KOH. Stipe context composed of parallel, 6–18(23) µm wide hyphae, hyaline to yellowish hyaline in KOH or NH4OH. Clamp connections were not seen in any tissue.
Habitat and distribution—Gregarious (up to 6 basidiomata) to fasciculate of 2–4 basidiomata, on soil in hill evergreen forest dominated by Fagaceae mixed with Dipterocarpaceae: Dipterocarpus obtusifolius, D. costatus, Shorea siamensis, Hopea sp. Currently known only from the type locality in Chiang Mai Province, northern Thailand.
Specimens examined—THAILAND, Chiang Mai Province, Mae Taeng District, 19°06’32.7” N–98°44’33.6” E, elev. 1,070 m, 4 Jun 2015, Santhiti Vadthanarat, SV0101 (CMUB, BR); ibid. 19°06’33.8” N–98°44’20.9” E, elev. 1110 m, 23 May 2017, Santhiti Vadthanarat, SV0394 (CMUB, BR); ibid. 19°06’36.2” N–98°44’41.1” E, elev. 1080 m, 23 May 2017, Santhiti Vadthanarat, SV0396 (CMUB, BR).
Notes—In the new species, the hymenophoral cystidia contained greenish yellow (1A8) pigments when fresh specimens were observed in water under a compound microscope. However, the pigment was discolored when the cystidia were observed in KOH or NH4OH, or after treatment of the specimen with heat (drying at 45–50 °C).
A macro-morphologically similar species, Butyriboletus roseoflavus (Hai B. Li & Hai L. Wei) D. Arora & J.L. Frank originally described from China, has a similar color tone of basidiomata with a light pink, light purplish red to rose-red pileus; and lemon-yellow, olive-yellow or honey-yellow hymenophore. However, it can be differentiated from R. auriporus by having a yellower and reticulated stipe which is lemon-yellow or light yellow with almost entirely reticulate stipe or at least in lower part; yellower context which is lemon-yellow and also variable staining reaction in response to bruising, bruising blue slowly or unchanging; bruising blue promptly hymenophore; subfusiform basidiospores; olive brown spore deposit; and the habitat in Pinus or mixed forests dominated by Pinus [52,53].
The chemical reaction of basidiospores with Melzer’s reagent which was negative to weakly dextrinoid in R. auriporus is also present in two Xerocomoideae species, Alessioporus ichnusanus (Alessio, Galli & Littini) Gelardi, Vizzini & Simonini, and Pulchroboletus roseoalbidus (Alessio & Littini) Gelardi, Vizzini & Simonini. However, the two species are different from R. auriporus by their basidiospore shapes, which are sub-cylindrical or ellipsoid or ellipsoid-fusoid, the strong discoloration (bluing or darkening) in parts of basidiomata, and olive-brown spore deposit [54].

4. Discussion

The new genus Rubinosporus is distinguished from other Boletaceae by a combination of striking characters, i.e., a golden yellow tubular hymenophore that is relatively thin especially when young, and dark ruby spore deposits. The character of golden yellow tubular hymenophore is also found in Aureoboletus, Alessioporus, and Pulchroboletus, which also belong to the subfamily Xerocomoideae. However, Aureoboletus species differ from Rubinosporus in usually having a viscid pileus surface especially when moist, olive brown spore deposit, and subfusiform or oblong ovoid to subglobose basidiospores [3,16,31]. Alessioporus is clearly different by the reticulated stipe occasionally with a granular ring-like zone in the middle or lower half of the stipe; rapidly bluing hymenophore, stipe surface, and context when bruised or exposed; sub-ellipsoid to fusiform, ellipsoid to subcylindrical basidiospores; olive brown spore deposit; and distribution in Mediterranean Italy and subtropical USA [54,55]. Pulchroboletus differs by the stipe surface with scattered red to reddish brown punctae, occasionally with reticulum or longitudinal striations, and with a pseudo-annulus; hymenophore and context usually intensively staining blue when bruised or cut; ellipsoidal to ellipsoid-fusoid basidiospores; olive brown colored spore deposit; so far found in Mediterranean Europe and tropical to subtropical America [46,54,56].
The thin hymenophore is also present in Baorangia and Lanmaoa G. Wu & Zhu L. Yang, which both belong to the Pulveroboletus group. They have a very thin hymenophore, with a tube length 1/3 to 1/5 times the thickness of the pileus context. However, Baorangia and Lanmaoa differ from Rubinosporus by having yellow hymenium (not golden or bright yellow) that immediately turns light blue to greenish blue when touched; olive-brown spore deposit; and subfusiform to elongated subfusiform basidiospores [5,17,35].
Although the color of spore deposit in Rubinosporus is somewhat similar to the color tone in Austroboletus (Corner) Wolfe and Ionosporus Khmeln., Austroboletus has a rufous madder to chocolate to purplish vinaceous spore deposit which is browner than in Rubinosporus. Also, Austroboletus species produce basidiomata with pileipellis markedly exceeding pileus margin, embracing the stipe in young basidiomata, whitish to pinkish hymenium, and ornamented basidiospores [3,57,58]. Ionosporus has pale violet to reddish brown spore deposit. However, their basidiospores have an obvious reaction in potassium hydroxide solution, turning deep purple violet. The basidiospores also have granulose pitted surface under SEM. Moreover, Austroboletus and Ionosporus phylogenetically belong to different subfamilies, the Austroboletoideae and Leccinoideae, respectively [2,10]. The color of spore deposit is one of the important character used to differentiate mushroom genera, both in the Agaricales and Boletales. Several previous studies used this character to differentiate new genera. For example, Tylopilus eximius (Peck) Singer, which has a reddish-brown spore deposit, was separated from Tylopilus (having a pinkish spore deposit), and placed in a new genus, Sutorius [48]. Cacaoporus is distinguished from the most similar genus Sutorius by its dark brown spore deposit while the genus Sutorius has a reddish-brown spore deposit [11]. Moreover, they were all supported by the phylogenies.
Most morphological characters of Rubinosporus fit the typical characters of Xerocomoideae genera, as described in Wu et. al. [2,3] and Zhu et al. [15]. However, the color of the spore deposit, which in all Xerocomoideae so far described has an olive-brown tint, is dark ruby in Rubinosporus. The differences in spore deposit color between genera within the same subfamily in Boletaceae, are also found in Boletoideae which varies from olive green (Boletus), blackish brown (Strobilomyces), light yellow or yellow golden (Xanthoconium), pinkish (Tylopilus) e.g., [2,3,59,60]. Spore print color, however, is mostly conserved at genus level, with only slight variations. Most Xerocomoideae genera, i.e., Boletellus, Hemileccinum, Heimioporus, Hourangia, Phylloporus, Xerocomus and some species in Aureoboletus produce ornamented basidiospores [3,15,40,61,62,63,64]. Exceptions exist, however, e.g., in Phylloporus and Xerocomus [44]. Smooth basidiospores are found in Alessioporus, Pulchroboletus, most species in Aureoboletus [3,31,46,54,55], and the new genus Rubinosporus. The basidiospores of the single Rubinosporus species, R. auriporus showed a weakly dextrinoid reaction in Melzer’s reagent, similar to two species in Alessioporus and Pulchroboletus, namely A. ichnusanus and P. roseoalbidus whereas the other species in the two latter genera are not dextrinoid [46,54,55,56]. Therefore, the character cannot be considered typical for Rubinosporus.
In the Xerocomoideae-wide phylogeny obtained in this study, the monophyly of all genera was highly supported. However, no sequences of Alessioporus were added in the phylogeny because among the genes that were used to infer our phylogeny, only a partial tef1 sequence of A. ichnusanus was available in GenBank. However, in ITS and combined ITS+ LSU+tef1 phylogenies of previous studies, Alessioporus was sister to Pulchroboletus [46,54,56]. In this study, Pulchroboletus was sister to Aureoboletus with high support, and distant from Rubinosporus. Moreover, Alessioporus is morphologically clearly different from Rubinosporus as discussed above. The relationship of Rubinosporus to the other genera within Xerocomoideae remains unclear. It formed a clade close to Hemileccinum with poor support. More species, genes, phylogenies are needed to reveal the sister relationship of Rubinosporus. In addition, the three genera Phylloporus, Hourangia, and Xerocomus formed a highly supported clade. Phylloporus formed a clade sister to Xerocomus, and both genera are sisters to Hourangia. The result is slightly different from Wu et al. [3] phylogeny (based on 28S, tef1, rpb1, and rpb2), in which the three genera also formed a highly supported clade but Phylloporus was sister to Hourangia, not Xerocomus like in this study.
Most of the Boletaceae genera have been recognized as important ectomycorrhizal fungi in forest ecosystems [65,66]. Rubinosporus also presumably forms ectomycorrhizal relationships with either Dipterocarpaceae or Fagaceae, or both. These two tree families were dominant around the area where the genus was found. However, further research is needed to confirm the ectomycorrhizal host species of Rubinosporus.
Rubinosporus is the third novel bolete genus described from Thailand, after Spongiforma Desjardin, Manfr. Binder, Roekring & Flegel, and Cacaoporus Raspé & Vadthanarat were described in 2009 and 2019, respectively [11,67]. Prior to this study, Boletaceae subfamily Xerocomoideae consisted of nine genera [2,3]. Based on the morphological and phylogenetic results in the present study, the tenth genus, Rubinosporus is introduced in the subfamily Xerocomoideae.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed study, O.R., S.V. and S.L.; analyzed data, S.V. and O.R.; collected specimens, S.V.; performed experiments, S.V. and O.R.; wrote the manuscript, S.V. and O.R.; reviewed and edited the manuscript, all authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research work was partially supported by Chiang Mai University, and also supported by a Postdoctoral Fellowship from Mae Fah Luang University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. This data can be found here: (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/; http://purl.org/phylo/treebase, submission ID 28349 and 28350; accessed on 1 December 2021).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Nuhn, M.E.; Binder, M.; Taylor, A.F.S.; Halling, R.E.; Hibbett, D.S. Phylogenetic overview of the Boletineae. Fungal Biol. 2013, 117, 479–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Wu, G.; Feng, B.; Xu, J.; Zhu, X.T.; Li, Y.C.; Zeng, N.K.; Hosen, I.; Yang, Z.L. Molecular phylogenetic analyses redefine seven major clades and reveal 22 new generic clades in the fungal family Boletaceae. Fungal Divers. 2014, 69, 93–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wu, G.; Li, Y.C.; Zhu, X.T.; Zhao, K.; Han, L.H.; Cui, Y.Y.; Li, F.; Xu, J.P.; Yang, Z.L. One hundred noteworthy boletes from China. Fungal Divers. 2016, 81, 25–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Orihara, T.; Smith, M.E. Unique phylogenetic position of the African truffle-like fungus, Octaviania ivoryana (Boletaceae, Boletales), and the proposal of a new genus, Afrocastellanoa. Mycologia 2017, 109, 323–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Crous, P.W.; Luangsa-ard, J.J.; Wingfield, M.J.; Carnegie, A.J.; Hernández-Restrepo, M.; Lombard, L.; Groenewald, J.Z. Fungal Planet description sheets: 785–867. Persoonia 2018, 41, 238–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Farid, A.; Gelardi, M.; Angelina, C.; Franck, A.R.; Costanzo, F.; Kaminsky, L.; Ercole, E.; Baroni, T.J.; White, A.L.; Garey, J.R.; et al. Phylloporus and Phylloboletellus are no longer alone: Phylloporopsis gen. nov. (Boletaceae), a new smooth-spored lamellate genus to accommodate the American species Phylloporus boletinoides. Fungal Syst. Evol. 2018, 2, 341–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ming, Z.; Hui, T.L. Erythrophylloporus (Boletaceae, Boletales), a new genus inferred from morphological and molecular data from subtropical and tropical China. Mycosystema 2018, 37, 1111–1126. [Google Scholar]
  8. Parihar, A.; Hembrom, M.E.; Vizzini, A.; Das, K. Indoporus shoreae gen. et sp. nov. (Boletaceae) from tropical India. Cryptogam. Mycol. 2018, 39, 447–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wu, G.; Lee, S.M.L.; Horak, E.; Yang, Z.L. Spongispora temakensis, a new boletoid genus and species from Singapore. Mycologia 2018, 110, 919–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Khmelnitsky, O.; Davoodian, N.; Singh, P.; Raspé, O.; Lee, S.M.; Fechner, N.; Bonito, G.; Lebel, T.; Halling, R.E. Ionosporus: A new genus for Boletus longipes (Boletaceae), with a new species, I. australis, from Australia. Mycol. Prog. 2019, 18, 439–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Vadthanarat, S.; Lumyong, S.; Raspé, O. Cacaoporus, a new Boletaceae genus, with two new species from Thailand. MycoKeys 2019, 54, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sulzbacher, M.A.; Orihara, T.; Grebenc, T.; Wartchow, F.; Smith, M.E.; Martín, M.P.; Giachini, A.J.; Baseia, I.G. Longistriata flava (Boletaceae, Basidiomycota)—A new monotypic sequestrate genus and species from Brazilian Atlantic Forest. MycoKeys 2020, 62, 53–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hyde, K.D.; Norphanphoun, C.; Chen, J.; Dissanayake, A.J.; Doilom, M.; Hongsanan, S.; Jayawardena, R.S.; Jeewon, R.; Perera, R.H.; Thongbai, B.; et al. Thailand’s amazing diversity: Up to 96% of fungi in northern Thailand may be novel. Fungal Divers. 2018, 93, 215–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Thongbai, B.; Hyde, K.D.; Lumyong, S.; Raspé, O. High undescribed diversity of Amanita section Vaginatae in northern Thailand. Mycosphere 2018, 9, 462–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhu, X.T.; Wu, G.; Zhao, K.; Halling, R.E.; Yang, Z.L. Hourangia, a new genus of Boletaceae to accommodate Xerocomus cheoi and its allied species. Mycol. Prog. 2015, 14, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pouzar, Z. Nova genera macromycetum I. Ceská Mykol. 1957, 11, 48–50. [Google Scholar]
  17. Wu, G.; Zhao, K.; Li, Y.C.; Zeng, N.K.; Feng, B.; Halling, R.E.; Yang, Z.L. Four new genera of the fungal family Boletaceae. Fungal Divers. 2015, 81, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Thiers, B. Continuously Updated—Index Herbariorum: A Global Directory of Public Herbaria and Associated Staff. New York Botanical Garden’s Virtual Herbarium. Available online: http://sweetgum.nybg.org/science/ih/ (accessed on 8 March 2022).
  19. Kornerup, A.; Wanscher, J.H. Methuen Handbook of Colour, 3rd ed.; Eyre Methuen Ltd.: London, UK, 1978; pp. 1–252. [Google Scholar]
  20. Doyle, J.J.; Doyle, J.L. Isolation of plant DNA from fresh tissue. Focus 1990, 12, 13–15. [Google Scholar]
  21. Raspé, O.; Vadthanarat, S.; De Kesel, A.; Degreef, J.; Hyde, K.D.; Lumyong, S. Pulveroboletus fragrans, a new Boletaceae species from Northern Thailand, with a remarkable aromatic odor. Mycol. Prog. 2016, 15, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Matheny, P.B. Improving phylogenetic inference of mushrooms with RPB1 and RPB2 nucleotide sequences (Inocybe; Agaricales). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2005, 35, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rehner, S.A.; Buckley, E. A Beauveria phylogeny inferred from nuclear ITS and EF1-α sequences: Evidence for cryptic diversification and links to Cordyceps teleomorphs. Mycologia 2005, 97, 84–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Katoh, K.; Standley, D.M. MAFFT Multiple sequence alignment software version 7: Improvements in performance and usability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2013, 30, 772–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Stamatakis, A. RAxML-vi-hpc: Maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics 2006, 22, 2688–2690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Miller, M.A.; Holder, M.T.; Vos, R.; Midford, P.E.; Liebowitz, T.; Chan, L.; Hoover, P.; Warnow, T. The CIPRES portals. CIPRES. 2009. Available online: http://www.phylo.org/portal2/home (accessed on 19 December 2021).
  27. Darriba, D.; Taboada, G.L.; Doallo, R.; Posada, D. jModelTest 2: More models, new heuristics and parallel computing. Nat. Methods 2012, 9, 772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Ronquist, F.; Teslenko, M.; van der Mark, P.; Ayres, D.; Darling, A.; Höhna, S.; Huelsenbeck, J.P. MrBayes 3.2: Efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Syst. Biol. 2012, 61, 539–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Kuo, M.; Ortiz-Santana, B. Revision of leccinoid fungi, with emphasis on North American taxa, based on molecular and morphological data. Mycologia 2020, 112, 197–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhang, M.; Li, T.H.; Wang, C.Q.; Song, B.; Xu, J. Aureoboletus formosus, a new bolete species from Hunan Province of China. Mycol. Prog. 2015, 14, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhang, M.; Li, T.H.; Wang, C.Q.; Zeng, N.K.; Deng, W.Q. Phylogenetic overview of Aureoboletus (Boletaceae, Boletales), with descriptions of six new species from China. MycoKeys 2019, 61, 111–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Vadthanarat, S.; Raspé, O.; Lumyong, S. Phylogenetic affinities of the sequestrate genus Rhodactina (Boletaceae), with a new species, R. rostratispora from Thailand. MycoKeys 2018, 29, 63–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Binder, M.; Hibbett, D.S. Molecular systematics and biological diversification of Boletales. Mycologia 2006, 98, 971–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sato, H.; Hattori, T. New species of Boletellus section Boletellus (Boletaceae, Boletales) from Japan, B. aurocontextus sp. nov. and B. areolatus sp. nov. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0128184. [Google Scholar]
  35. Phookamsak, R.; Hyde, K.D.; Jeewon, R.; Bhat, D.J.; Jones, E.B.G.; Maharachchikumbura, S.S.N.; Raspé, O.; Karunarathna, S.C.; Wanasinghe, D.N.; Hongsanan, S.; et al. Fungal diversity notes 929–1035: Taxonomic and phylogenetic contributions on genera and species of fungi. Fungal Divers. 2019, 95, 1–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Zhao, K.; Wu, G.; Feng, B.; Yang, Z.L. Molecular phylogeny of Caloboletus (Boletaceae) and a new species in East Asia. Mycol. Prog. 2014, 13, 1127–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhao, K.; Wu, G.; Yang, Z.L. A new genus, Rubroboletus, to accommodate Boletus sinicus and its allies. Phytotaxa 2014, 188, 61–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gelardi, M.; Simonini, G.; Ercole, E.; Davoli, P.; Vizzini, A. Cupreoboletus (Boletaceae, Boletineae), a new monotypic genus segregated from Boletus sect Luridi to reassign the Mediterranean species B. poikilochromus. Mycologia 2015, 107, 1254–1269. [Google Scholar]
  39. Vadthanarat, S.; Amalfi, M.; Halling, R.E.; Bandala, V.; Lumyong, S.; Raspé, O. Two new Erythrophylloporus species (Boletaceae) from Thailand, with two new combinations of American species. MycoKeys 2019, 55, 29–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Halling, R.E.; Fechner, N.; Nuhn, M.; Osmundson, T.; Soytong, K.; Arora, D.; Binder, M.; Hibbett, D. Evolutionary relationships of Heimioporus and Boletellus (Boletales), with an emphasis on Australian taxa including new species and new combinations in Aureoboletus, Hemileccinum and Xerocomus. Aust. Syst. Bot. 2015, 28, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Vadthanarat, S.; Lumyong, S.; Raspé, O. Heimioporus subcostatus, a new Boletaceae species from northern and northeastern Thailand. Phytotaxa 2020, 475, 018–028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Orihara, T.; Smith, M.E.; Shimomura, N.; Iwase, K.; Maekawa, N. Diversity and systematics of the sequestrate genus Octaviania in Japan: Two new subgenera and eleven new species. Persoonia 2012, 28, 85–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Orihara, T.; Lebel, T.; Ge, Z.W.; Smith, M.E.; Maekawa, N. Evolutionary history of the sequestrate genus Rossbeevera (Boletaceae) reveals a new genus Turmalinea and highlights the utility of ITS minisatellite-like insertions for molecular identification. Persoonia 2016, 37, 173–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Chuankid, B.; Vadthanarat, S.; Hyde, K.D.; Thongklang, N.; Zhao, R.; Lumyong, S.; Raspé, O. Three new Phylloporus species from tropical China and Thailand. Mycol. Prog. 2019, 18, 603–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Binder, M.; Larsson, K.H.; Matheny, B.P.; Hibbett, D.S. Amylocorticiales ord. nov. and Jaapiales ord. nov.: Early diverging clades of Agaricomycetidae dominated by corticioid forms. Mycologia 2010, 102, 865–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Crous, P.W.; Wingfield, M.J.; Lombard, L.; Roets, F.; Swart, W.J.; Alvarado, P.; Groenewald, J.Z. Fungal Planet description sheets: 951–1041. Persoonia 2019, 43, 223–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Henkel, T.W.; Obase, K.; Husbands, D.; Uehling, J.K.; Bonito, G.; Aime, M.C.; Smith, M.E. New Boletaceae taxa from Guyana: Binderoboletus segoi gen. and sp. nov., Guyanaporus albipodus gen. and sp. nov., Singerocomus rubriflavus gen. and sp. nov., and a new combination for Xerocomus inundabilis. Mycologia 2016, 108, 157–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Halling, R.E.; Nuhn, M.; Fechner, N.A.; Osmandson, T.W.; Soytong, K.; Arora, D.; Hibbett, D.S.; Binder, M. Sutorius: A new genus for Boletus eximius. Mycologia 2012, 104, 951–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Vadthanarat, S.; Halling, R.E.; Amalfi, M.; Lumyong, S.; Raspé, O. An unexpectedly high number of new Sutorius (Boletaceae) species from northern and northeastern Thailand. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Li, Y.C.; Ortiz-Santana, B.; Zeng, N.K.; Feng, B. Molecular phylogeny and taxonomy of the genus Veloporphyrellus. Mycologia 2014, 106, 291–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Li, Y.C.; Feng, B.; Yang, Z.L. Zangia, a new genus of Boletaceae supported by molecular and morphological evidence. Fungal Divers. 2011, 49, 125–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Li, H.; Wei, H.; Peng, H.; Ding, H.; Wang, L.; He, L.; Fu, L. Boletus roseoflavus, a new species of Boletus in section Appendiculati from China. Mycol. Prog. 2013, 13, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Arora, D.; Frank, J.L. Clarifying the butter Boletes: A new genus, Butyriboletus, is established to accommodate Boletus sect. Appendiculati, and six new species are described. Mycologia 2014, 106, 464–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gelardi, M.; Simonini, G.; Ercole, E.; Vizzini, A. Alessioporus and Pulchroboletus gen. nov. (Boletaceae, Boletineae), two novel genera to accommodate Xerocomus ichnusanus and X. roseoalbidus from European Mediterranean basin: Molecular and morphological evidence. Mycologia 2014, 106, 1168–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Frank, J.L.; Bessette, A.R.; Bessette, A.E. Alessioporus rubriflavus (Boletaceae), a new species from the eastern United States. N. Am. Fungi. 2017, 12, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  56. Farid, A.; Franck, A.R.; Garey, J.R. Boletus rubricitrinus belongs in Pulchroboletus (Boletaceae). Czech Mycol. 2017, 69, 143–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Horak, E. Revision of Malaysian Species of Boletales s.l. (Basidiomycota) Described by Corner EJH (1972, 1974); Forest Research Institute and Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment: Selangor, Malaysia, 2011; pp. 1–283. [Google Scholar]
  58. Fechner, N.; Bonito, G.; Bougher, N.L.; Lebel, T.; Halling, R.E. New species of Austroboletus (Boletaceae) in Australia. Mycol. Prog. 2017, 16, 769–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Halling, R.E.; Desjardin, D.E.; Fechner, N.; Arora, D.; Soytong, K.; Dentinger, B.T.M. New porcini (Boletus sect. Boletus) from Australia and Thailand. Mycologia 2014, 106, 830–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Han, L.H.; Hao, Y.J.; Liu, C.; Dai, D.Q.; Zhao, K.; Tang, L.Z. Strobilomyces rubrobrunneus (Boletaceae), a new species with reddish brown scales from eastern China. Phytotaxa 2018, 376, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Horak, E. Heimioporus E. Horak gen. nov.—Replacing Heimiella Boedijn (1951, syn. post., Boletales, Basidiomycota). Sydowia 2004, 56, 237–240. [Google Scholar]
  62. Šutara, J. Xerocomus s. l. in the light of the present state of knowledge. Czech Mycol. 2008, 60, 29–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Neves, M.A.; Halling, R.E. Study on species of Phylloporus I: Neotropics and North America. Mycologia 2010, 102, 923–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Neves, M.A.; Binder, M.; Halling, R.; Hibbett, D.; Soytong, K. The phylogeny of selected Phylloporus species inferred from NUC-LSU and ITS sequences, and descriptions of new species from the Old World. Fungal Divers. 2012, 55, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tedersoo, L.; Smith, M.E. Lineages of ectomycorrhizal fungi revisited: Foraging strategies and novel lineages revealed by sequences from belowground. Fungal Biol. Rev. 2013, 27, 83–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Husbands, D.R.; Henkel, T.W.; Bonito, G.; Vilgalys, R.; Smith, M.E. New species of Xerocomus (Boletales) from the Guiana Shield, with notes on their mycorrhizal status and fruiting occurrence. Mycologia 2013, 105, 422–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Desjardin, D.E.; Binder, M.; Roekring, S.; Flegel, T. Spongiforma, a new genus of gasteroid boletes from Thailand. Fungal Divers. 2009, 37, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Boletaceae-wide Maximum Likelihood phylogenetic tree inferred from the four-gene dataset (atp6, cox3, rpb2, and tef1) (introns excluded), showing position of the new genus Rubinosporus in Xerocomoideae. Bootstrap support values (BS ≥ 70%) and the corresponding Bayesian posterior probabilities (PP ≥ 0.90) are shown above the supported branches. The two Buchwaldoboletus and seven Chalciporus species (subfamily Chalciporoideae) were used as the outgroup. All taxa belonging to subfamilies Austroboletoideae, Boletoideae, Chalciporoideae, Leccinoideae, and Zangioideae were collapsed into subfamily clades. All generic clades in subfamily Xerocomoideae and Pulveroboletus group that were highly supported were also collapsed.
Figure 1. Boletaceae-wide Maximum Likelihood phylogenetic tree inferred from the four-gene dataset (atp6, cox3, rpb2, and tef1) (introns excluded), showing position of the new genus Rubinosporus in Xerocomoideae. Bootstrap support values (BS ≥ 70%) and the corresponding Bayesian posterior probabilities (PP ≥ 0.90) are shown above the supported branches. The two Buchwaldoboletus and seven Chalciporus species (subfamily Chalciporoideae) were used as the outgroup. All taxa belonging to subfamilies Austroboletoideae, Boletoideae, Chalciporoideae, Leccinoideae, and Zangioideae were collapsed into subfamily clades. All generic clades in subfamily Xerocomoideae and Pulveroboletus group that were highly supported were also collapsed.
Jof 08 00278 g001
Figure 2. Xerocomoideae-wide phylogenetic tree inferred from the four-gene dataset (atp6, cox3, rpb2, and tef1) (introns included), including new genus Rubinosporus and selected Xerocomoideae using Maximum Likelihood and Bayesian Inference methods (ML tree is presented). The four Butyriboletus species in Pulveroboletus group were used as the outgroup. Bootstrap support values (BS ≥ 70%) and posterior probabilities (PP ≥ 0.90) are shown above the supported branches.
Figure 2. Xerocomoideae-wide phylogenetic tree inferred from the four-gene dataset (atp6, cox3, rpb2, and tef1) (introns included), including new genus Rubinosporus and selected Xerocomoideae using Maximum Likelihood and Bayesian Inference methods (ML tree is presented). The four Butyriboletus species in Pulveroboletus group were used as the outgroup. Bootstrap support values (BS ≥ 70%) and posterior probabilities (PP ≥ 0.90) are shown above the supported branches.
Jof 08 00278 g002
Figure 3. Fresh basidiomata of Rubinosporus auriporus: (A,B) SV0090 (Holotype); (C,D) SV0394, spores deposit on the cap showing dark ruby color (white arrow); (E) SV0396; (F) the golden yellow pores, irregularly reddish brown at places in (SV0394)—Bars (AE) = 1, (F) = 5 mm.
Figure 3. Fresh basidiomata of Rubinosporus auriporus: (A,B) SV0090 (Holotype); (C,D) SV0394, spores deposit on the cap showing dark ruby color (white arrow); (E) SV0396; (F) the golden yellow pores, irregularly reddish brown at places in (SV0394)—Bars (AE) = 1, (F) = 5 mm.
Jof 08 00278 g003
Figure 4. Scanning electron micrographs of Rubinosporus auriporus basidiospores from the holotype—Bar = 1 µm.
Figure 4. Scanning electron micrographs of Rubinosporus auriporus basidiospores from the holotype—Bar = 1 µm.
Jof 08 00278 g004
Figure 5. Microscopic features of Rubinosporus auriporus: (A) Basidiospores; (B) Basidia; (C) Two shapes of cheilocystidia; (D) Caulocystidia; (E) Pileipellis; (F) Stipitipellis.—Bars A–D = 10 µm, E,F = 50 µm. All drawings were made from the type (SV0090).
Figure 5. Microscopic features of Rubinosporus auriporus: (A) Basidiospores; (B) Basidia; (C) Two shapes of cheilocystidia; (D) Caulocystidia; (E) Pileipellis; (F) Stipitipellis.—Bars A–D = 10 µm, E,F = 50 µm. All drawings were made from the type (SV0090).
Jof 08 00278 g005
Table 1. List of collections used for phylogenetic analyses, with origin, GenBank accession numbers, and reference(s).
Table 1. List of collections used for phylogenetic analyses, with origin, GenBank accession numbers, and reference(s).
SpeciesVoucherOriginatp6cox3rpb2tef1Reference(s)
Afroboletus aff. multijugus JD671BurundiMH614651MH614794MH614747MH614700[11]
Afroboletus costatisporusADK4644TogoKT823958MH614795 *KT823991KT824024[21], [11] *
Afroboletus luteolusADK4844TogoMH614652MH614796MH614748MH614701[11]
Aureoboletus auriflammeusCFMR:BOS-699USAMK766269MK721060[29]
Aureoboletus catenariusHKAS54467China KT990349KT990711[3]
Aureoboletus duplicatoporusHKAS50498China KF112754 KF112230 [2]
Aureoboletus formosusGDGM44441ChinaKT291751KT291744[30]
Aureoboletus gentilisADK4865BelgiumKT823961MH614797 *KT823994KT824027[21], [11] *
Aureoboletus glutinosusGDGM44477ChinaMH700229MH700205[31]
Aureoboletus innixusCFMR:BOS-544USAMK766270MK721061[29]
Aureoboletus moravicusVDKO1120BelgiumMG212528MH614798 *MG212615MG212573[32], [11] *
Aureoboletus nephrosporusHKAS74929ChinaKT990358KT990721[3]
Aureoboletus projectellusAFTOL-ID-713USADQ534604 *AY787218 AY879116 [33] *, Unpublished
Aureoboletus raphanaceusGDGM 53127ChinaMN549706MN549676[31]
Aureoboletus singeriCFMR:BOS-468BelizeMK766274MK721065[29]
Aureoboletus sp. OR0245ChinaMH614653MH614799MH614749MH614702[11]
Aureoboletus sp. OR0369ThailandMH614654MH614800MH614750MH614703[11]
Aureoboletus tenuisGDGM42601ChinaKT291754KT291745[30]
Aureoboletus thibetanusAFTOL-ID-450ChinaDQ534600 *DQ366279DQ029199[33] *, Unpublished
Aureoboletus tomentosusHKAS90216ChinaKT990355KT990717[3]
Aureoboletus viscidipesHKAS77103ChinaKT990360KT990723[3]
Aureoboletus viscosusOR0361ThailandMH614655MH614801MH614751MH614704[11]
Australopilus palumanusREH-9433AustraliaMK766276MK721067[29]
Austroboletus cf. dictyotusOR0045ThailandKT823966MH614802 *KT823999KT824032[21], [11] *
Austroboletus cf. subvirens OR0573ThailandMH614656MH614803MH614752MH614705[11]
Austroboletus olivaceoglutinosusHKAS57756China KF112764KF112212[2]
Austroboletus sp. OR0891ThailandMH614657MH614804MH614753MH614706[11]
Boletellus aff. ananasNY815459Costa RicaKF112760KF112308[2]
Boletellus aff. emodensisOR0061ThailandKT823970MH614806 *KT824003KT824036[21], [11] *
Boletellus ananasK(M)123769BelizeMH614658MH614807MH614754MH614707[11]
Boletellus areolatusTNS-F-61444 JapanAB989025AB999754[34]
Boletellus aurocontextusTNS-F-61501JapanAB989037AB999770[34]
Boletellus emodensisTNS-F-61564JapanAB989053AB999782[34]
Boletellus sp.OR0621ThailandMG212529MH614808 *MG212616MG212574[32], [11] *
Boletus aereusVDKO1055BelgiumMG212530MH614809 *MG212617MG212575[32], [11] *
Boletus albobrunnescensOR0131ThailandKT823973MH614810 *KT824006KT824039[21], [11] *
Boletus edulisVDKO0869BelgiumMG212531MH614811 *MG212618MG212576[32], [11] *
Boletus rubricepsMICH:KUO-08150719USAMK766284MK721076[29]
Boletus s.s. sp. OR0446ChinaMG212532MH614813 *KF112703MG212577[32], [11] *
Borofutus dhakanusOR0345ThailandMH614660MH614814MH614755MH614709[11]
Buchwaldoboletus lignicolaHKAS76674ChinaKF112819KF112277[2]
Buchwaldoboletus lignicolaVDKO1140BelgiumMH614661MH614815MH614756MH614710[11]
Butyriboletus appendiculatusVDKO0193bBelgiumMG212537MH614816 *MG212624MG212582[32], [11] *
Butyriboletus cf. roseoflavusOR0230ChinaKT823974MH614819 *KT824007KT824040[21], [11] *
Butyriboletus floridanusBOS-617BelizeMK766287MK721079[29]
Butyriboletus frostiiNY815462USAKF112675KF112164[2]
Butyriboletus pseudoregiusVDKO0925BelgiumMG212538MH614817 *MG212625MG212583[32], [11] *
Butyriboletus roseopurpureusBOTH4497USAMG897418MH614818 *MG897438MG897428[35], [11] *
Butyriboletus subsplendidusHKAS50444 ChinaKT990379KT990742[3]
Butyriboletus yicibusHKAS55413ChinaKF112674KF112157[2]
Cacaoporus pallidicarneusSV0221ThailandMK372262MK372299MK372286MK372273[11]
Cacaoporus tenebrosusSV0223ThailandMK372266MK372303MK372290MK372277[11]
Caloboletus calopusADK4087Belgium MG212539MH614820KP055030KJ184566[32], [36], [37], [11]
Caloboletus firmusBOS-372BelizeMK766288MK721080[29]
Caloboletus inedulisBOTH3963USAMG897414MH614821 *MG897434MG897424[35], [11] *
Caloboletus radicansVDKO1187BelgiumMG212540MH614822 *MG212626MG212584[32], [11] *
Caloboletus sp. OR0068ThailandMH614662MH614823MH614757MH614711[11]
Caloboletus yunnanensisHKAS69214ChinaKT990396KJ184568[36], [3]
Chalciporus aff. piperatusOR0586ThailandKT823976MH614824 *KT824009KT824042[21], [11] *
Chalciporus aff. rubinus OR0139ChinaMH614663MH614758MH614712[11]
Chalciporus africanusJD517CameroonKT823963MH614825 *KT823996KT824029[21], [11] *
Chalciporus piperatusVDKO1063BelgiumMH614664MH614826MH614759MH614713[11]
Chalciporus rubinusAF2835BelgiumKT823962KT823995KT824028[21]
Chalciporus sp.OR0363ThailandMH645586MH645607MH645602MH645594[11]
Chalciporus sp.OR0373ThailandMH645587MH645608MH645603MH645595[11]
Chamonixia brevicolumnaDBG_F28707USAMK766291MK721083[29]
Chamonixia caespitosaOSC117571USAMK766293MK721085[29]
Chiua sp. OR0141ChinaMH614665MH614827MH614760MH614714[11]
Chiua virensOR0266ChinaMG212541MH614828 *MG212627MG212585[32], [11] *
Chiua viridulaHKAS74928ChinaKF112794KF112273[2]
Crocinoboletus cf. laetissimusOR0576ThailandKT823975MH614833 *KT824008KT824041[21], [11] *
Crocinoboletus rufoaureusHKAS53424ChinaKF112710KF112206[2]
Cupreoboletus poikilochromusGS10070ItalyKT157068KT157072[38]
Cyanoboletus brunneoruberOR0233ChinaMG212542MH614834 *MG212628MG212586[32], [11] *
Cyanoboletus pulverulentusRW109BelgiumKT823980MH614835 *KT824013KT824046[21], [11] *
Cyanoboletus sinopulverulentusHKAS59609ChinaKF112700KF112193[2]
Cyanoboletus sp.OR0257ChinaMG212543MH614836 *MG212629MG212587[32], [11] *
Cyanoboletus sp. OR0322ThailandMH614673MH614837MH614768MH614722[11]
Cyanoboletus sp. OR0961ThailandMH614675MH614839MH614770MH614724[11]
Erythrophylloporus aurantiacusREH7271Costa RicaMH614666MH614829MH614761MH614715[39]
Erythrophylloporus fagicolaGaray215MexicoMH614667MH614830MH614762MH614716[39]
Erythrophylloporus paucicarpusOR1151ThailandMH614670MH614831MH614765MH614719[39]
Erythrophylloporus suthepenseSV0236ThailandMH614672MH614832MH614767MH614721[39]
Fistulinella prunicolorREH9880AustraliaMH614676MH614840MH614771MH614725[11]
Harrya chromapesHKAS50527ChinaKF112792KF112270[2]
Harrya moniliformisHKAS49627ChinaKT990500KT990881[3]
Heimioporus conicusHKAS53451ChinaKF112805KF112226[3]
Heimioporus australisREH9288AustraliaKP327703[40]
Heimioporus cooloolaeREH9817AustraliaKP327710[40]
Heimioporus fruticicolaREH8962AustraliaKP327696[40]
Heimioporus gaojiaocongHKAS80582ChinaKT990409KT990770[3]
Heimioporus ivoryiREH8620Costa RicaKP327683[40]
Heimioporus japonicusOR0114ThailandKT823971KT824004KT824037[21]
Heimioporus japonicusSV0016ThailandMT136776MT136766MT136771[41]
Heimioporus mandarinusOR0218ThailandMG212546MG212632MG212590[32]
Heimioporus subcostatusSV0235ThailandMT136780MT136770MT136775[41]
Hemileccinum depilatumAF2845BelgiumMG212547MH614843 *MG212633MG212591[32], [11] *
Hemileccinum hortoniiMICH:KUO-07050706USAMK766377MK721175 [29]
Hemileccinum impolitumADK4078BelgiumMG212548MH614844 *MG212634MG212592[32], [11] *
Hemileccinum indecorumOR0863ThailandMH614677MH614845MH614772MH614726[11]
Hemileccinum rubropunctumREH-8501USAMK766327MK721122[29]
Hemileccinum rugosumHKAS84355 ChinaKT990413KT990774[3]
Hemileccinum sp.HKAS59445ChinaKT990414KT990775[3]
Hemileccinum sp.HKAS53421ChinaKF112751KF112235[2]
Hemileccinum subglabripesMICH:KUO-07230802USAMK766300MK721092[29]
Hortiboletus amygdalinusHKAS54166ChinaKT990416KT990777[3]
Hortiboletus campestrisMICH:KUO-08240502USAMK766302MK721094[29]
Hortiboletus rubellusVDKO0403BelgiumMH614679MH614847MH614774[11]
Hortiboletus subpaludosusHKAS59608ChinaKF112696KF112185[2]
Hourangia cf. pumila OR0762ThailandMH614680MH614848MH614775MH614728[11]
Hourangia cheoiHKAS52269ChinaKF112773KF112286[15]
Hourangia microcarpaHKAS53378ChinaKF112775KF112300[2]
Hourangia nigropunctataHKAS 57427ChinaKP136978KP136927[15]
Hourangia sp.HKAS68178ChinaKF112776KF112301[2]
Hymenoboletus luteopurpureusHKAS46334China KF112795KF112271[2]
Imleria badiaVDKO0709BelgiumKT823983MH614849 *KT824016KT824049[21], [11] *
Imleria obscurebrunneaOR0263ChinaMH614681MH614850MH614776MH614729[11]
Imleria pallidusBOTH4356USAMH614659MH614812MH614708[11]
Lanmaoa angustisporaHKAS74752ChinaKM605177KM605154[17]
Lanmaoa asiaticaOR0228ChinaMH614682MH614851MH614777MH614730[11]
Lanmaoa carminipesBOTH4591USAMG897419MH614852 *MG897439MG897429[35], [11] *
Lanmaoa pallidoroseaBOTH4432USAMG897417MH614853 *MG897437MG897427[35], [11] *
Lanmaoa sp. OR0130ThailandMH614683MH614854MH614778MH614731[11]
Lanmaoa sp. OR0370ThailandMH614684MH614855MH614779MH614732[11]
Leccinellum aff. crocipodiumHKAS76658ChinaKF112728KF112252[2]
Leccinellum aff. griseum KPM-NC-0017832JapanKC552164JN378450*unpublished, [42] *
Leccinellum cremeumHKAS90639ChinaKT990420KT990781[3]
Leccinum scabrumVDKO0938BelgiumMG212549MH614858 *MG212635MG212593[32], [11] *
Leccinum schistophilumVDKO1128BelgiumKT823989MH614859 *KT824022KT824055[21], [11] *
Leccinum variicolorVDKO0844BelgiumMG212550MH614860 *MG212636MG212594[32], [11] *
Mucilopilus castaneicepsHKAS75045ChinaKF112735KF112211[2]
Mycoamaranthus cambodgensisSV0197ThailandMZ355900MZ355909This study
Neoboletus brunneissimusOR0249ChinaMG212551MH614861 *MG212637MG212595[32], [11] *
Neoboletus ferrugineusHKAS77718ChinaKT990431KT990789[3]
Neoboletus flavidusHKAS59443ChinaKU974144KU974136[3]
Neoboletus hainanensisHKAS59469ChinaKF112669KF112175[2]
Neoboletus junquilleusAF2922FranceMG212552MH614862 *MG212638MG212596[32], [11] *
Neoboletus magnificusHKAS74939ChinaKF112653KF112148[2]
Neoboletus obscureumbrinusOR0553ThailandMK372271MK372294MK372282[11]
Neoboletus sp. OR0128ThailandMH614686MH614863MH614781MH614734[11]
Neoboletus tomentulosusHKAS53369ChinaKF112659KF112154[2]
Neoboletus erythropusVDKO0690BelgiumKT823982MH614864 *KT824015KT824048[21], [11] *
Octaviania asterospermaAQUI3899ItalyKC552159KC552093[43]
Octaviania cyanescensPNW-FUNGI-5603USAKC552160JN378438[43], [42]
Octaviania decimaeKPM-NC17763JapanKC552145JN378409[43], [42]
Octaviania tasmanicaMEL2128484AustraliaKC552157JN378437[43], [42]
Octaviania zelleriMES270USAKC552161JN378440[43], [42]
Phylloporus bellusOR0473ChinaMH580778MH614866 *MH580818MH580798[44], [11] *
Phylloporus brunneicepsOR0050ThailandKT823968MH614867 *KT824001KT824034[21], [11] *
Phylloporus castanopsidisOR0052ThailandKT823969MH614868 *KT824002KT824035[21], [11] *
Phylloporus maculatusOR0285ChinaMH580780MH580820MH580800[44]
Phylloporus pachycystidiatusHKAS53422ChinaKF112777KF112288[2]
Phylloporus pelletieriWU18746AustriaMH580781MH614869 *MH580821MH580801[44], [11] *
Phylloporus pusillusOR1158ThailandMH580783MH614870 *MH580823MH580803[44], [11] *
Phylloporus rhodoxanthusWU17978AustriaMH580785MH614871 *MH580824MH580805[44], [11] *
Phylloporus rubeolusOR0251ChinaMH580786MH614872 *MH580825MH580806[44], [11] *
Phylloporus rubiginosusOR0169ChinaMH580788MH614873 *MH580827MH580808[44], [11] *
Phylloporus rubrosquamosusHKAS52552ChinaKF112780KF112289[2]
Phylloporus scabripesCFMR:BOS-621BelizeMK766359MK721156[29]
Phylloporus sp. OR0896ThailandMH580790MH614874 *MH580829MH580810[44], [11] *
Phylloporus subbacillisporusOR0436ChinaMH580792MH614875 *MH580831MH580812[44], [11] *
Phylloporus subrubeolusBC022ThailandMH580793MH614876 *MH580832MH580813[44], [11] *
Phylloporus yunnanensisOR0448ChinaMG212554MH614877 *MG212640MG212598[32], [11] *
Porphyrellus castaneusOR0241ChinaMG212555MH614878 *MG212641MG212599[32], [11] *
Porphyrellus aff. nigropurpureus ADK3733BeninMH614687MH614879MH614782MH614735[11]
Porphyrellus nigropurpureusHKAS74938ChinaKF112763KF112246[2]
Porphyrellus porphyrosporusMB97 023GermanyDQ534609GU187800GU187734[33], [45]
Porphyrellus sp. JD659BurundiMH614688MH614880MH614783MH614736[11]
Porphyrellus sp. OR0222ThailandMH614689MH614881MH614784MH614737[11]
Pulchroboletus sclerotiorumFLAS F 60333USAMF614169MF614167[46]
Pulchroboletus sclerotiorumFLAS F 60334USAMF614164MF614165[46]
Pulveroboletus aff. raveneliiADK4360TogoKT823957MH614882 *KT823990KT824023[21], [11] *
Pulveroboletus aff. raveneliiADK4650TogoKT823959MH614883 *KT823992KT824025[21], [11] *
Pulveroboletus brunneopunctatusHKAS55369ChinaKT990455KT990814[3]
Pulveroboletus fragransOR0673Thailand KT823977MH614884 *KT824010KT824043[21], [11] *
Pulveroboletus raveneliiREH2565USAKU665635MH614885 *KU665637KU665636[21], [11] *
Retiboletus aff. nigerrimusOR0049ThailandKT823967MH614886 *KT824000KT824033[21], [11] *
Retiboletus brunneolusHKAS52680ChinaKF112690KF112179[2]
Retiboletus fuscusOR0231ChinaMG212556MH614887 *MG212642MG212600[32], [11] *
Retiboletus griseusMB03 079USAKT823964MH614888 *KT823997KT824030[21], [11] *
Retiboletus kauffmaniiOR0278ChinaMG212557MH614889 *MG212643MG212601[32], [11] *
Retiboletus nigerrimusHKAS53418ChinaKT990462KT990824[3]
Rhodactina himalayensisCMU25117ThailandMG212558MG212602, MG212603[32]
Rhodactina rostratisporaSV0170ThailandMG212560MG212645MG212605[32]
Rossbeevera cryptocyaneaKPM-NC17843JapanKT581441KC552072[43]
Rossbeevera griseovelutinaTNS-F-36989Japan KC552124KC552076[43]
Rossbeevera pachydermisKPM-NC23336New ZealandKJ001064KP222912[43]
Royoungia rubinaHKAS53379ChinaKF112796KF112274[2]
Rubinosporus auriporusSV0090 ThailandMZ355896MZ355905MZ355901MZ355903This study
Rubinosporus auriporusSV0101ThailandMZ355897MZ355906MZ355902MZ355904This study
Rubinosporus auriporusSV0394ThailandMZ355898MZ355907This study
Rubinosporus auriporusSV0396ThailandMZ355899MZ355908This study
Rubroboletus legaliaeVDKO0936BelgiumKT823985MH614890 *KT824018KT824051[21], [11] *
Rubroboletus rhodosanguineusBOTH4263USAMG897416MH614891 *MG897436MG897426[35], [11] *
Rubroboletus rhodoxanthusHKAS84879ChinaKT990468KT990831[3]
Rubroboletus satanasVDKO0968BelgiumKT823986MH614892 *KT824019KT824052[21], [11] *
Rugiboletus andinusREH-7705Costa ricaMK766316 MK721111 [29]
Rugiboletus brunneiporusHKAS83209China KM605168 KM605144 [17]
Rugiboletus extremiorientalisOR0406ThailandMG212562MH614893 *MG212647MG212607[32], [11] *
Singerocomus inundabilisTWH9199GuyanaMH645588MH645609LC043089*MH645596[47] *, [11]
Singerocomus rubriflavusTWH9585GuyanaMH645589MH645610MH645597[11]
Spongiforma thailandicaDED7873Thailand MG212563MH614894 **MG212648KF030436*[1] *, [32], [11] **
Strobilomyces echinocephalusOR0243ChinaMG212564MG212649MG212608[32]
Strobilomyces floccopusRW103BelgiumKT823978MH614895 *KT824011KT824044[21], [11] *
Strobilomyces mirandusOR0115ThailandKT823972MH614896 *KT824005KT824038[21], [11] *
Strobilomyces sp.OR0259ChinaMG212565MH614897 *MG212650MG212609[32], [11] *
Strobilomyces sp. OR0319ThailandMH614690MH614898MH614785MH614738[11]
Strobilomyces sp. OR0778ThailandMG212566MH614899 *MG212651MG212610[32], [11] *
Strobilomyces sp. OR1092ThailandMH614691MH614900MH614786MH614739[11]
Strobilomyces verruculosusHKAS55389ChinaKF112813KF112259[2]
Suillellus luridusVDKO0241bBelgiumKT823981MH614901 *KT824014KT824047[21], [11] *
Suillellus queletiiVDKO1185BelgiumMH645590MH645611MH645604MH645598[11]
Suillellus subamygdalinusHKAS57262ChinaKF112660KF112174[2]
Sutorius australiensisREH9441AustraliaMG212567MK386576 **MG212652JQ327032*[48] *, [32], [11] **
Sutorius eximiusREH9400USAMG212568MH614902 **MG212653JQ327029*[48] *, [32], [11] **
Sutorius pachypusOR0411Thailand MN067465MN067500MN067484[49]
Sutorius pseudotylopilusOR0378BThailandMH614692MH614903MH614787MH614740[11]
Sutorius rubinusOR0379ThailandMH614693MH614904MH614788MH614741[11]
Sutorius ubonensisSV0032Thailand MN067472MN067507MN067491[49]
Tengioboletus glutinosusHKAS53425ChinaKF112800KF112204[2]
Tengioboletus reticulatusHKAS53426ChinaKF112828KF112313[2]
Turmalinea persicinaKPM-NC18001Japan KC552130KC552082[43]
Turmalinea yuwanensisKPM-NC18011JapanKC552138KC552089 [43]
Tylopilus balloui s.l.OR0039ThailandKT823965MH614905 *KT823998KT824031[21], [11] *
Tylopilus felleusVDKO0992BelgiumKT823987MH614906 *KT824020KT824053[21], [11] *
Tylopilus ferrugineusBOTH3639USAMH614694MH614907MH614789MH614742[11]
Tylopilus otsuensisHKAS53401ChinaKF112797KF112224[2]
Tylopilus sp. JD598GabonMH614695MH614908MH614790MH614743[11]
Tylopilus sp. OR0252ChinaMG212569MH614909 *MG212654MG212611[32], [11] *
Tylopilus sp. OR0542ThailandMG212570MH614910 *MG212655MG212612[32], [11] *
Tylopilus sp. OR1009ThailandMH614697MH614911MH614791[11]
Tylopilus vinaceipallidusOR0137ChinaMG212571MH614912 *MG212656MG212613[32], [11] *
Tylopilus violaceobrunneusHKAS89443ChinaKT990504KT990886[3]
Veloporphyrellus conicusREH8510BelizeMH614698MH614913MH614792MH614745[11]
Veloporphyrellus gracilioidesHKAS53590ChinaKF112734KF112210[2]
Veloporphyrellus pseudovelatusHKAS59444ChinaJX984519JX984553[50]
Veloporphyrellus velatusHKAS63668ChinaJX984523JX984554[50]
Xanthoconium affineNY00815399USAKT990486KT990850[3]
Xanthoconium purpureumMICH:KUO-07061405USAMK766372MK721170[29]
Xanthoconium sinenseHKAS77651China KT990488KT990853[3]
Xerocomellus chrysenteronVDKO0821BelgiumKT823984MH614914 *KT824017KT824050[21], [11] *
Xerocomellus cisalpinusADK4864BelgiumKT823960MH614915 *KT823993KT824026[21], [11] *
Xerocomellus communisHKAS50467ChinaKT990494KT990858[3]
Xerocomellus ripariellusVDKO0404BelgiumMH614699MH614916MH614793MH614746[11]
Xerocomus ferrugineusCFMR:BOS-545USAMK766375MK721173[29]
Xerocomus fulvipesHKAS76666ChinaKF112789KF112292[2]
Xerocomus magniporusHKAS58000ChinaKF112781KF112293[2]
Xerocomus puniceiporusHKAS80683ChinaKU974146KU974138[3]
Xerocomus rugosellusHKAS58865ChinaKF112784KF112294[2]
Xerocomus s.s. sp. OR0237ChinaMH580796MH580835MH580816[44]
Xerocomus s.s. sp. OR0443ChinaMH580797MH614917 *MH580836MH580817[44], [11] *
Xerocomus s.s. sp. OR0053ThailandMH580795MH614918 *MH580834MH580815[44], [11] *
Xerocomus spadiceus var. gracilisMICH:KUO-07080702USAMK766378MK721176[29]
Xerocomus subtomentosusVDKO0987BelgiumMG212572MH614919 *MG212657MG212614[32], [11] *
Xerocomus tenaxMICH:KUO-08241404USAMK766379MK721177[29]
Zangia citrinaHKAS52684China HQ326850HQ326872[51]
Zangia olivaceobrunneaHKAS52272ChinaHQ326857HQ326876[51]
Zangia roseolaHKAS51137ChinaHQ326858HQ326877[51]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vadthanarat, S.; Raspé, O.; Lumyong, S. Rubinosporus auriporus gen. et sp. nov. (Boletaceae: Xerocomoideae) from Tropical Forests of Thailand, Producing Unusual Dark Ruby Spore Deposits. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 278. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8030278

AMA Style

Vadthanarat S, Raspé O, Lumyong S. Rubinosporus auriporus gen. et sp. nov. (Boletaceae: Xerocomoideae) from Tropical Forests of Thailand, Producing Unusual Dark Ruby Spore Deposits. Journal of Fungi. 2022; 8(3):278. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8030278

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vadthanarat, Santhiti, Olivier Raspé, and Saisamorn Lumyong. 2022. "Rubinosporus auriporus gen. et sp. nov. (Boletaceae: Xerocomoideae) from Tropical Forests of Thailand, Producing Unusual Dark Ruby Spore Deposits" Journal of Fungi 8, no. 3: 278. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8030278

APA Style

Vadthanarat, S., Raspé, O., & Lumyong, S. (2022). Rubinosporus auriporus gen. et sp. nov. (Boletaceae: Xerocomoideae) from Tropical Forests of Thailand, Producing Unusual Dark Ruby Spore Deposits. Journal of Fungi, 8(3), 278. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8030278

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop