Next Article in Journal
Molecular Response of Meyerozyma guilliermondii to Patulin: Transcriptomic-Based Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Phylogeny, Taxonomy and Evolutionary Trade-Offs in Reproductive Traits of Gomphoid Fungi (Gomphaceae, Gomphales)
Previous Article in Journal
Wood Degradation by Fomitiporia mediterranea M. Fischer: Exploring Fungal Adaptation Using Metabolomic Networking
Previous Article in Special Issue
Taxonomy and Phylogeny of Fungi Associated with Mangifera indica from Yunnan, China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JoF
Volume 9
Issue 5
10.3390/jof9050537
jof-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Taxonomy and Phylogeny of Cystolepiota (Agaricaceae, Agaricales): New Species, New Combinations and Notes on the C. seminuda Complex

by
Hua Qu
1,2,3,
Ulrike Damm
4,
Ya-Jun Hou
1,2,3 and
Zai-Wei Ge
1,2,*
1
CAS Key Laboratory for Plant Diversity and Biogeography of East Asia, Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanhei Road 132, Kunming 650201, China
2
Yunnan Key Laboratory for Fungal Diversity and Green Development, Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming 650201, China
3
University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
4
Department of Botany, Senckenberg Museum of Natural History Görlitz, PF 300 154, 02806 Görlitz, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Fungi 2023, 9(5), 537; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9050537
Submission received: 22 March 2023 / Revised: 26 April 2023 / Accepted: 26 April 2023 / Published: 30 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fungal Diversity and Systematics in the Digital Era)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Species of Cystolepiota are known as diminutive lepiotaceous fungi with a worldwide distribution. Previous studies revealed that Cystolepiota is not monophyletic and preliminary DNA sequence data from recent collections suggested that several new species exist. Based on multi-locus DNA sequence data (the nuc rDNA internal transcribed spacer region ITS1-5.8S-ITS2, ITS; the D1–D2 domains of nuc 28S rDNA, LSU; the most variable region of the second-largest subunit of RNA polymerase II, rpb2 and a portion of the translation–elongation factor 1-α. tef1), C. sect. Pulverolepiota forms a distinct clade separating from Cystolepiota. Therefore, the genus Pulverolepiota was resurrected and two combinations, P. oliveirae and P. petasiformis were proposed. With the integration of morphological characteristics, multi-locus phylogeny, and information on geography and habitat, two new species, viz. C. pseudoseminuda and C. pyramidosquamulosa, are described and C. seminuda was revealed to be a species complex containing at least three species, viz. C. seminuda, C. pseudoseminuda, and Melanophyllum eryei. In addition, C. seminuda was re-circumscribed and neo-typified based on recent collections.

1. Introduction

The genus Cystolepiota Singer (Agaricaceae, Basidiomycota) was erected by Singer and Digilio (1951) to accommodate tiny and delicate mushroom species with epithelioid pileus-coverings and basidiospores that are neither amyloid nor dextrinoid [1]. Several species with dextrinoid basidiospores were subsequently placed or combined into this genus., e.g., C. bucknallii (Berk. and Broome) Singer and Clémençon, C. icterina F.H. Møller ex Knudsen and C. microspora (Sacc.) Singer and Clémençon [2,3]. Singer and Clémençon (1972) further divided the genus in two sections: C. sect. Pseudoamyloideae Singer & Clemençon, accommodating species with dextrinoid basidiospores, and C. sect. Cystolepiota Singer, containing the remaining species [3]. Pulverolepiota Bon, a genus proposed by Bon (1993) to accommodate Lepiota pulverulenta Huijsman (synonym of C. petasiformis (Murrill) Vellinga) and L. roseolanata Huijsman, was transferred to Cystolepiota as the third section, C. sect. Pulverolepiota (Bon) Vellinga, characterized by slow-staining dextrinoid spores, the absence of cystidia, and elongated and inflated pileus covering elements [4,5,6].
Based on the similarity of the pileus covering structures, species of Lepiota sect. Echinatae Fayod were regarded as Cystolepiota species by some mycologists [2,7,8,9] and treated as Cystolepiota subgen. Echinoderma Locq. ex Bon, while other mycologists suggested these species should remain in Lepiota (Pers.) Gray [10,11,12,13,14,15]. In contrast, Bon (1991) placed these species in the new genus Echinoderma (Locq. ex Bon) Bon [16]. A phylogeny inferred from sequences of the nuc rDNA internal transcribed spacer region ITS1-5.8S-ITS2 (ITS) and the D1–D2 domains of nuc 28S rDNA (LSU) showed the genus Cystolepiota to be closely related to L. sect. Echinatae, Melanophyllum Velen. and Pulverolepiota [17]. According to this phylogeny, species of L. sect. Echinatae formed two clades: a “large-spored” group that included L. aspera (Pers.) Quél., L. hystrix F.H. Møller & J.E. Lange, and L. perplexa Knudsen and a “small-spored” group that included L. jacobi Vellinga & Knudsen, L. echinacea J.E. Lange, etc. However, in a recent multi-locus sequence analysis [18], the species of original L. sect. Echinatae, those with large, subcylindrical spores and that include L. aspera, the type species of this section, represented a sister taxon to a clade formed by Cystolepiota and Melanophyllum and were treated as Echinoderma (hereafter referred to as Echinoderma sensu stricto), while the species with smaller, ellipsoid-to-oblong spores remained in Lepiota (hereafter referred as “L. sect. Echinatae”). A further study showed Cystolepiota and Melanophyllum constitute a clade sister to Smithiomyces Singer and that species of both Echinoderma sensu stricto and L. sect. Echinatae have more distant relationships with Cystolepiota and therefore should not be included in Cystolepiota [19].
Cystolepiota seminuda (Lasch) Bon is considered to be distributed worldwide [20,21,22]. However, the variability of size and color of basidiomata, as well as its spore morphology, has given rise to considerable controversy on its taxonomic treatment [21]. The basionym Agaricus seminudus Lasch was described based on macroscopic characteristics by Lasch in 1828 [23] and was later transferred to Lepiota, Cystoderma Fayod, Mastocephalus Battarra (nom. inval.), and finally to Cystolepiota [24,25,26,27]. Quélet treated L. seminuda (Lasch) P. Kumm. as a variety of L. sistrata (Fr.) Quél., a species originally described in Sweden as A. sistratus Fr. and later combined with Cystolepiota as well [28,29]. Several authors considered A. seminudus a synonym of C. sistrata (Fr.) Singer ex Bon & Bellù [10,15,30,31,32,33], while other authors regarded them as different species [8,20,34,35]. Fayod even erected the genus Fusispora Fayod to accommodate L. sistrata and considered A. seminudus as a member of another new genus, Cystoderma [25]. In contrast, Vellinga reduced L. sororia Huijsman and L. rufipes Morgan to synonymy with C. seminuda [21,36].
The current application of the name C. seminuda is unstable. Preliminary phylogenies with ITS sequence data retrieved from GenBank placed specimens identified in previous studies as C. seminuda [18,37,38] in different clades within the genus Cystolepiota. During our investigations of the Agaricaceae in recent years, we compiled several collections with fruit bodies closely resembling C. seminuda in overall morphology but exhibiting a considerable degree of variation. Observations under scanning electron microscope (SEM) revealed distinct differences in spore ornamentations, while further analyses of DNA sequences also exhibited significant molecular differences, indicating the existence of more species in addition to C. seminuda.
The aim of this study was therefore to: (1) re-delimitate Cystolepiota and discuss its relationships with related genera; (2) typify and circumscribe C. seminuda based on recent specimens collected close to its type locality and clarify its systematic position; and (3) explore the species diversity of Cystolepiota and describe novel species based on morphological characteristics and DNA sequence data.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Morphological Studies

Macroscopic descriptions are based on field notes and digital images of fresh basidiomata. The color code of Kornerup and Wanscher was used [39]. Measurements and descriptions of microscopic characteristics were performed on dried materials. Sections of specimens were rehydrated in 5% aqueous (w/v) potassium hydroxide (KOH) and stained with 1% Congo red reagent, if necessary. Microscopic features were observed and measured under a Leica DM2500 light microscope (LM). Basidia, basidiospores, cystidia, and pileal structures were measured and depicted using brightfield or phase contrast optics. Chemical reactions of basidiospores were tested in Melzer’s reagent and cresyl blue. The lamella fragments of dried specimens were fixed on an aluminum pile with double-sided adhesive tape, then coated with gold palladium and observed under a ZEISS Sigma 300 scanning electron microscope (SEM).
The notations [n/m/p] indicate that the measurements were taken on n basidiospores, from m basidiomata and p collections. The dimensions of basidiospores were provided with the notation (a–)b–c(–d). The range b–c indicates the minimum and maximum values of 90% of the measured structures. The a and d in parentheses indicate the absolute extreme values. Q is used to indicate the length/width ratio of basidiospores in lateral view; Qm means average Q of all basidiospores ± sample standard deviation.
The spore size data from the type material of Lepiota sororia was obtained from Figure 1 in Vellinga (1987) using WebPlotDigitizer (https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer/ (accessed on 5 September 2022)) [21]. The scatter diagrams were plotted in R v4.2.1 using the ggplot2 package [40,41].
Specimens are deposited in the Herbarium of Cryptogams, Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences (KUN) and in the fungarium of the Senckenberg Museum of Natural History, Görlitz (GLM).

2.2. DNA Extraction, PCR Amplifications and Sequencing

Genomic DNA was extracted from dry basidiomata using a fungal genomic DNA extraction kit (BioTeke Corporation, Beijing, China) following the manufacturer’s instructions. Four DNA fragments were amplified and sequenced: ITS, LSU, the most variable region of the second-largest subunit of RNA polymerase II (rpb2), and a portion of the translation–elongation factor 1-α (tef1). The primer pairs ITS1F/ITS4 [42,43], LR0R/LR5 [44,45], bRPB2-6F/bRPB2-7.1R [46], and EF1-983F/EF1-1567R [47] were used for the amplification of the respective DNA fragments. PCR amplification and sequencing protocols followed those of Hou and Ge (2020) [18]. The 50 newly-generated sequences were deposited in GenBank (Tables S1 and S2).

2.3. Phylogenetic Analyses

The phylogenetic analyses included 120 ITS, 57 LSU, 44 rpb2, and 42 tef1 sequences. Based on recent phylogenetic studies [18,19], sequences of three Echinoderma species were chosen as the outgroup of the ITS analysis and sequences of two Coprinus species for the combined analysis. Multiple sequences alignments were performed with MAFFT v7.4.95 [48] and ambiguously aligned regions of each sequence were detected and excluded using trimAl v1.4 [49]. The resulting alignments were examined and optimized manually in AliView 1.27 [50].
Firstly, maximum likelihood (ML) phylogenetic trees were reconstructed based on matrices of each respective gene fragment, viz. the ITS matrix (120 sequences), the subsampled ITS matrix with selected sequences, the LSU matrix, the rpb2 matrix, and the tef1 matrix. As no conflicts with high support (>50%) were observed among the ML trees of the five data sets (Figure 1 and Figures S1–S4), three multi-locus concatenated matrices (ITS-LSU-rpb2-tef1, LSU-rpb2-tef1, and rpb2-tef1 matrix) were constructed using PhyloSuite v1.2.2 [51] and analyzed by the ML method and bayesian inference (BI) method.
The best-fit substitution model for each single alignment was estimated by PartitionFinder 2 [52]. The BI analyses were performed with MrBayes v. 3.2.6 [53] by applying the best-fit model for each partition (2 parallel runs, 10,000,000 generations), in which the initial 25% of sampled data was discarded as burn-in. The Bayesian posterior probabilities (BPPs) were calculated from the posterior distribution of the remaining phylogenetic trees. ML estimation was conducted with RAxML 8.2.12 [54] using GTR+I+GAMMA as the best-fit likelihood model. Statistical supports were calculated with 1000 bootstrap replicates. Resulting phylograms were displayed in FigTree 1.4.4 (http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/ (accessed on 2 November 2021)).

3. Results

3.1. Phylogenetic Results

The ITS data set consisted of 120 sequences and 745 sites, including 356 parsimony informative sites. The final matrix of the combined data set included 89 ITS, 57 LSU, 44 rpb2, and 42 tef1 sequences, in which the aligned lengths of the four gene fragments were 651, 862, 705, and 563 bp, respectively, that contained 963 parsimony informative sites. As the ITS phylogenetic tree included the largest number of samples and the ITS-LSU-rpb2-tef1 phylogenetic tree was the second-most supported phylogenetic tree with relatively more species than other phylogenetic trees inferred from the combined data set (Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figures S1–S6), the phylogenies based on the ITS data set and the combined ITS-LSU-rpb2-tef1 data set were displayed and used for subsequent discussions (Figure 1 and Figure 2).
In the ITS phylogeny (Figure 1), most of the specimens previously identified as C. seminuda and either sequenced in this study or from previous studies belong to Clade I (ML bootstrap [MLB] = 66%, Bayesian posterior probability [BPP] = 0.94) or Clade II (MLB = 98%, BPP = 1.00); both together represent the C. seminuda complex. Clade I consists of a clade formed by several subclades, including C. pseudoseminuda (MLB = 100%, BPP = 1.00) and C. aff. pseudoseminuda 1 (MLB = 100%, BPP = 1.00) and 2 (MLB = 100%, BPP = 1.00), two specimens previously identified as Melanophyllum eyrei (Massee) Singer that grouped with low support (MLB = 52%, BPP < 0.90) and several further unnamed subclades. Clade II includes C. seminuda (s. str.) and several further unnamed subclades as well. The C. seminuda (s. str.) subclade is the clade with the largest number of specimens previously identified as this species and is well supported (MLB = 97%, BPP = 0.99). Two specimens from Germany (GLM-F107803 and GLM-F107804) previously identified as C. seminuda form a distinct separate clade (MLB = 100%, BPP = 1.00). One specimen from China (KUN-HKAS 53985) forms another distinct clade (MLB = 100%, BPP = 1.00) with a specimen from Italy previously identified as C. seminuda and an uncultured Cystolepiota clone from India. A further specimen from China (KUN-HKAS 124759) is grouped with the holotype of C. oliveirae P. Roux, M. Paraíso, J.-P. Maurice, A.-C. Normand and F. Fouchier (MLB = 88%, BPP = 0.98) and forms a sister clade to two specimens of an unnamed species from Hawaii. Both are grouped with Cystolepiota petasiformis, representing the well-supported Pulverolepiota clade (MLB = 100%, BPP = 1.00). Specimens labeled C. bucknallii, C. icterina, and C. rhodella Sysouph. and Thongkl in GenBank, which represent three species with dextrinoid basidiospores, does not form a monophyletic group.
In the phylogeny inferred from ITS-LSU-rpb2-tef1 (Figure 2), five main clades can be recognized: the clade including Cystolepiota and Melanophyllum (MLB = 77%, BPP = 0.91), the Echinoderma clade (MLB = 100%, BPP = 1.00), the Smithiomyces clade (MLB = 100%, BPP = 1.00), the Lepiota clade (MLB = 63%, BPP = 1.00), and the Pulverolepiota clade (MLB = 100%, BPP = 1.00). Most of the specimens previously identified as C. seminuda and either sequenced in this study or from previous studies belong to Clade I (MLB = 75%, BPP = 0.98) or Clade II (MLB = 100%, BPP = 1.00) in the first main clade (Cystolepiota/Melanophyllum clade). The two clades of the C. seminuda complex are sister to each other, forming a clade with low support (MLB = 59%, BPP < 0.90). Clade I consists of C. pseudoseminuda, C. aff. pseudoseminuda 1 and 2, M. eyrei, and several further unnamed subclades. Clade II includes C. seminuda (s. str.) and several further unnamed subclades as well. One specimen from China (KUN-HKAS 53985) forms a distinct clade (MLB = 100%, BPP = 1.00) with a specimen from Italy previously identified as C. seminuda and an uncultured Cystolepiota clone from India within the Cystolepiota/Melanophyllum main clade. Two specimens (GLM-F107803 and GLM-F107804) from Germany also form a distinct clade (MLB = 100%, BPP = 1.00) within the Cystolepiota/Melanophyllum clade. A further specimen from China (KUN-HKAS 124759) is grouped with the holotype of C. oliveirae within the Pulverolepiota clade.
The C. seminuda complex formed a well-supported clade in all the resulting phylogenetic trees based on rpb2, tef1, as well as the combined rpb2-tef1 data set (Figures S3–S5). However, the ITS-LSU-rpb2-tef1 combined data set, and LSU-tef1-rpb2 combined data set support the monophyly of the C. seminuda complex with low supports, while the LSU data set showed the lowest signals for the phylogeny of Cystolepiota. The presence of ITS and/or LSU in the combined data sets seem to decrease the statistical support of certain nodes of the phylogenetic tree inferred from the combined data set (Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figures S1–S6).

3.2. Taxonomy

Cystolepiota pseudoseminuda Y.J. Hou, H. Qu & Z.W. Ge, sp. nov. Figure 3A–C, Figure 4C,D and Figure 5.
MycoBank: MB845494.
Etymology: The name refers to the resemblance of the new species to Cystolepiota seminuda [Latin pseudo = false].
Diagnosis: Cystolepiota pseudoseminuda is distinguished from other Cystolepiota species by its slender basidiomata, pulverulent or granulose squamules with a pink to orange tinge that are composed of loosely-arranged inflated cells connected to filamentous hyphae, non-dextrinoid basidiospores with distinct warts on the surface visible under LM and SEM, the absence of cystidia, and the presence of abundant clamp connections. Its ITS, LSU, rpb2, and tef1 sequences differentiate this species from other species.
Type: China, Yunnan Province, Kunming City, Kunming Botanical Garden, on soil under Cupressaceae, alt. 1980 m, 21 October 2015, Z.W. Ge 3795 (Holotype: KUN-HKAS 92275). GenBank: ITS = MN810149, LSU = MN810101, rpb2 = MN820980, tef1 = MN820926.
Description: Pileus 5–18 mm diam, hemispherical to obtusely conical when young, expanding to plano-convex or applanate with a slightly umbonate center with age; surface dry, white to cream, with pulverulent to granulose squamules, fugacious, white, cream, pale orange (5A3), pink (10A3), pinkish-orange to light pink (6A2-5) at the center, turning white to cream towards the margin; margin of the pileus with easily detachable veil remnants. Lamellae up to 2(3) mm broad, free, moderately crowded, unequal, white to light cream, with 1–3 tiers of small lamellulae. Stipe 20–50 × 0.5–2 mm, central, subcylindrical to cylindrical, surface white to cream on the upper portion, with age gradually turning to pale orange (5A3-4), grayish orange (6B5-7), brownish (5D6) to purplish brown (7F7) towards the middle and lower portion with age, with pulverulent to granulose squamules, which are concolorous with those of the pileus; with a fragile and fugacious membranous veil between pileus margin and stipe initially; basal mycelium white. Context thin, whitish. Odorless; taste not recorded.
Basidiospores [100/5/3] (3–)3.5–4.5(–5) × 2–3 (–3.5) μm, Q = (1.21–)1.24–1.85(–2.20), Qm = 1.55 ± 0.19, ovoid to ellipsoid, colorless, thin-walled, inamyloid, non-dextrinoid, metachromatic in cresyl blue; surface slightly punctate-rough under the LM, distinct warts (up to 0.15 µm high) visible under SEM (Figure 4C,D); apiculus small. Basidia 13–23 × 3.5–8.5 μm, clavate, hyaline, 4-spored, rarely 2-spored; sterigmata 1–3 μm long. Lamellar trama regular, made up of cylindrical colorless hyphae, 3–15 μm in diam. Cheilocystidia and pleurocystidia absent. Squamules composed of loosely-arranged globose, subglobose, or ellipsoid, rarely sphaeropedunculate cells, 17–28 × 15–24 µm, smooth-walled, slightly thick-walled, with colorless or sometimes yellowish intracellular pigments; the abovementioned cells are usually attached to hyaline hyphae, 1–6 µm in diam, colorless. Clamp connections present in all tissues (Figure 5).
Habitat and distribution: solitary or scattered on nutrient-rich soil or rotten leaves, distributed in temperate and subtropical zones of southwestern and central China.
Additional specimens examined: China, Gansu Province, Longnan City, Wen County, Chengguan Town, hill near Jiachang Village, on rotting leaves under bushes (Fagaceae, Rosaceae and Coriaria nepalensis), alt. 1700 m, 26 August 2011, X.T. Zhu 574 (KUN-HKAS 73969); Yunnan Province, Kunming City, Kunming Botanical Garden, alt. 1915 m, 9 October 2005, Z.W. Ge 923 (KUN-HKAS 49482).
Notes: Cystolepiota pseudoseminuda is morphologically similar to C. seminuda regarding color and size of the basidiomata. Both species form pulverulent to granulose squamules, non-dextrinoid basidiospores, and clamp connections, while cystidia are lacking. However, the surface of basidiospores of C. seminuda is smooth under LM and SEM, which is in contrast to the warty basidiospores of C. pseudoseminuda. The basidiospores of C. pseudoseminuda are shorter and wider at Q = (1.21–)1.24–1.85(–2.20) and Qm = 1.55 ± 0.19, compared to those of C. seminuda at Q = (1.41–)1.46–2.15(–2.45) and Qm = 1.78 ± 0.22. At least according to the specimens examined in this study, although the characteristics of basidiospores vary strongly between specimens of C. pseudoseminuda and C. seminuda and there is an overlap between the two species in basidiospore size and shape, individuals with high Qm value always belong to C. seminuda and those with low Qm value always belong to C. pseudoseminuda (Figure 6). In addition, there are 92 (out of 722) nucleotide differences between the ITS sequences of the holotype of C. pseudoseminuda and that of the neotype of C. seminuda.
Specimens of C. pseudoseminuda form a robust clade with C. aff. pseudoseminuda 1 and C. aff. pseudoseminuda 2 in in both phylogenies (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The ITS sequences of the three groups are 96% to 97% identical. Their geographical distribution patterns are different: C. pseudoseminuda has so far been collected only in southwestern China and C. aff. pseudoseminuda 1 in Europe and northern China, while all the sequences of C. aff. pseudoseminuda 2 are derived from specimens collected in the Unites States of America (USA). Based on the observation of specimens in this study, no distinct morphological differences were found to distinguish C. pseudoseminuda and C. pseudoseminuda 1 (Figure 4A–D) and no specimens of C. pseudoseminuda 2 were studied morphologically. Further morphological observations need to be conducted on C. aff. pseudoseminuda 1 and C. aff. pseudoseminuda 2.
Cystolepiota pyramidosquamulosa H. Qu & Z. W. Ge sp. nov. Figure 3I, Figure 4L and Figure 7.
MycoBank: MB845060.
Etymology: The epithet “pyramidosquamulosa” refers to the pyramidal squamules on the pileus.
Diagnosis: Cystolepiota pyramidosquamulosa is distinguished from all other Cystolepiota species by its brownish, relatively large, irregular pyramidal squamules on the pileus, an annulus-like zone on the upper portion of the stipe, the smooth-walled (under LM and SEM), inamyloid, and non-dextrinoid basidiospores, the absence of cystidia, and the presence of clamp connections. Its ITS, LSU, rpb2, and tef1 sequences are distinct from other species.
Type: China, Sichuan Province, Aba Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefectures, Maerkang (Barkam) City, Dangba Township, Yinlang Village, on soil, 17 August 2007, Z. W. Ge 1900 (Holotype, KUN-HKAS 53985). GenBank: ITS = OP059088, LSU = OP059068, rpb2 = OP104335, tef1 = OP141792.
Description: Pileus 24–28 mm in diam, convex to plano-convex with an indistinct broad umbo; surface white, covered with concolorous flocculose squamules and brownish (5B4-5) irregular pyramidal squamules (up to 5 mm in height) that spread out towards the margin and can easily be wiped off; margin with overhanging squamules similar to those on the pileus. Lamellae free, close, up to 2.5 mm wide, yellowish-white (2A3), with 1–3 tiers of lamellulae; lamellae margin smooth. Stipe 30–45 × 15–25 mm, central, cylindrical, with a slightly expanded base, hollow, stuffed with white fibers, brownish (5B4-5); glabrous or slightly pruinose at the apex, with an annulus-like zone on the upper part covered with similar squamules as the pileus; squamules on lower portion cream to yellowish white (2A2-3), flocculose or pulverulent. Context of stipe and pileus cream to brownish (5B4). Smell and taste were not recorded.
Basidiospores [100/5/1] (3.5–)4–5 (–5.5) × (1.5–)2–3 μm, Q = (1.44–)1.60–2.28(–2.47), Qm = 1.95 ± 0.20, ellipsoid to elongate, sometimes cylindrical, colorless, thin-walled, smooth-walled under the LM and SEM (Figure 4L); inamyloid, non-dextrinoid, metachromatic in cresyl blue. Basidia (13.5–)15–18.5 × 5–7 μm, clavate, hyaline, 4-spored; sterigmata 2.5–3.5 μm long. Cheilocystidia and pleurocystidia not observed. Lamellar trama regular, colorless, composed of cylindrical hyphae, 5–7.5 μm in diam. The squamules on pileus and stipe consist of inflated cells and filamentous hyphae; inflated cells abundant, globose to subglobose, rarely fusiform or sphaero-pedunculate, 21–33 × 20–29 µm, smooth-walled, with a slightly thick, chartreuse-yellow wall, usually 2–5 cells forming loosely arranged chains; hyphae rare, 1–3 µm in diam, chartreuse-yellow. Clamp connections present in all tissues (Figure 7).
Habitat and distribution: Presumably saprotrophic. Solitary or scattered on soil. Found in Asia (China, India) and Europe (Italy).
Notes: Pyramidal squamules are the most distinctive macroscopic characteristic of Cystolepiota pyramidosquamulosa. The pilei of P. oliveirae and P. petasiformis (=P. pulverulenta) are also covered with obvious squamules and also lack cystidia. However, the two species can be distinguished from C. pyramidosquamulosa by the rough basidiospores that slowly become red-brown in Melzer’s reagent and the squamules composed of irregular, branched, inflated, and oblong elements. In addition, the basidiospores of C. pyramidosquamulosa are narrower than those of the latter two species [5,55,56]. Cystolepiota pyramidalis Sysouph. and Thongkl. forms squamules similar to C. pyramidosquamulosa. However, C. pyramidalis forms cheilocystidia and ellipsoid–ovoid spores and has so far only been collected in Laos and Thailand [57]. In contrast to C. pyramidosquamulosa, C. fumosifolia (Murrill) Vellinga and C. pseudofumosifolia M.L. Xu & R.L. Zhao form warty to granulose squamules and have cystidia [5,58]. Cystolepiota adulterina F.H. Møller ex Bon has warty squamules and somewhat resembles C. pyramidosquamulosa macroscopically. However, it differs in the presence of abundant cheilocystidia. In addition, C. pyramidosquamulosa can be distinguished from other species by its distinct ITS, LSU, rpb2, and tef1 sequences.
Two ITS sequences from GenBank, JF907983 (from Italy) and KU847887 (from India), are similar to the sequence derived from the type specimen of C. pyramidosquamulosa; both differ by seven nucleotides from C. pyramidosquamulosa, which is considered within the variability of C. pyramidosquamulosa.
Cystolepiota seminuda (Lasch) Bon, Documents Mycologiques 6(24): 43, 1976. Figure 3D–F, Figure 4E–G and Figure 8.
≡ Agaricus seminudus Lasch, Linnaea 3: 157, 1828 (Basionym).
≡ Lepiota seminuda (Lasch) P. Kumm., Führ. Pilzk. (Zerbst): 136, 1871.
≡ Lepiota sistrata var. seminuda (Lasch) Quél., Mém. Soc. Émul. Montbéliard, Sér. 2 5: 231, 1872.
≡ Cystoderma seminudum (Lasch) Fayod, Annls Sci. Nat., Bot., sér. 7 9: 351, 1889.
≡ Mastocephalus seminudus (Lasch) Kuntze, Revis. gen. pl. (Leipzig) 2: 860, 1891.
= Lepiota seminuda f. minima J.E. Lange, Fl. Agaric. Danic. 1: 36, 1935 (Nom. inval.).
= Lepiota sistrata f. minima J.E. Lange ex Babos, Annls hist.–nat. Mus. natn. hung. 50: 91, 1958 (Nom. inval.).
Neotypification: Germany, Saxony, Zwickau, Helmsdorf-Nord, edge of the forest, 10 October 2007, H. Jurkschat (GLM-F125824, neotype designated here), MycoBank: MBT10008384, GenBank: ITS = OL898735.
Description: Pileus 2.5–12 mm diam, first conical, paraboloid to hemispherical, then expanding to plano-convex or convex, often with a broad umbo at the center; surface white, when young, changing to light cream with age, covered with densely powdery to granulose squamules, which become sparse or even disappear with age; light yellowish-brown (6C3-5), pinkish-orange to light pink (6A2-5) at the center of the pileus; white to cream towards the margin, fragile and easily breaking off; pileus margins often appendiculate with veil remnants. Lamellae up to 2(–3) mm wide, free, crowded, white to light cream, with 3–5 tiers of lamellulae. Stipe 10–45 mm long, 0.5–1.5 mm diam, central, subcylindrical to cylindrical; white to cream; glabrous in the upper part, gradually darkening towards the base, central and lower part grayish orange (6B5-7), brownish (5D6), reddish brown (7C6-7) to purplish brown (7F7), with white, light cream to light brownish powdery to granulose squamules, easily breaking off. Context thin (<1 mm), whitish. Smell not distinct; taste not recorded.
Basidiospores [160/8/7] (3–)3.5–4.5(–5) × (1.5–)2–2.5(–3) μm, Q = (1.41–)1.46–2.15(–2.45), Qm = 1.78 ± 0.22, ellipsoid to elongate; inamyloid, non-dextrinoid, metachromatic in cresyl blue; colorless, surface smooth under LM and SEM (Figure 4E–G); apiculus small. Basidia (11–)13–18.5(–20) × (4–)5–6(–7) μm, clavate, 4-spored; sterigmata 1.5–3 μm long. Lamellar trama regular, composed of hyphae, 3–9 μm diam. Pleurocystidia and cheilocystidia absent. Squamules composed of loosely arranged globose, subglobose, ellipsoid, or sometimes sphaeropedunculate cells, 16–41 × 14–35 µm and slender hyphae, 1–4 µm in diam, smooth-walled, thick-walled, colorless. Clamp connections present in all tissues (Figure 8).
Habitat and distribution: solitary or scattered on soil, rotten leaves, or between moss, distributed in temperate and subtropical zones of the Northern Hemisphere (China, Estonia, Germany, USA).
Additional specimens examined: China, Yunnan Province, Kunming City, Golden Temple, 14 June 2008, Z.W. Ge 2014 (KUN-HKAS 54210); ibid., Z.W. Ge 2015 (KUN-HKAS 54211); Kunming Botanical Garden, 28 October 2017, Z.W. Ge 4102 (KUN-HKAS 106016); Xiaoshao, 25 October 2017, Z.W. Ge 4094 (KUN-HKAS 106008); Xizang (Tibet) Autonomous Region, Qamdo Prefecture, Mangkang (Markam) County, alt. 3302 m, 4 August 2013, Z.W. Ge 3437 (KUN-HKAS 84275). Estonia, Viljandi S, Loodi, 17 August 1989, G. Zschieschang (GLM-F040567); Heimtali, 17 August 1989, G. Zschieschang (GLM-F040540). Germany, North Rhine-Westphalia, Lohmar, Wahner Heide, 1 November 2016, K. Wehr (GLM-F109912); Saxony, Görlitz-Biesnitz, Landeskrone, under Fagus, 15 September 1996, G. Zschieschang (GLM-F036422); Saxony Herrnhut, Hutberg, under Tilia and Quercus, 27 September 2001, G. Zschieschang (GLM-F042189).
Notes: Agaricus seminudus, the basionym of Cystolepiota seminuda, was described in the Margraviate of Brandenburg (not identical with the contemporary state of Brandenburg), Germany [23]. As no holotype specimen of A. seminudus was designated, specimens previously collected in Germany that had been identified as C. seminuda based on morphology were studied. The ITS sequences of these specimens confirmed the placement of this species in the genus Cystolepiota. However, these specimens belonged to four clades, suggesting the existence of four species. Two of them clustered with sequences from GenBank that had been generated from specimens identified as C. seminuda as well and represent two different species. The basidiospores of the specimens of one species were observed to be ornamented under the SEM, while those of another species were smooth-walled. We regard the latter species as C. seminuda because it includes specimens that had been collected closest to the type location and most of the German specimens belonged to it. Moreover, these specimens were presumably growing on soil, two specimens from Estonia were even collected between moss described as the habitat of A. seminudus in the protologue of the species. As the holotype was neither located in ZE Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum, Freie Universität Berlin (B), where the type specimens of G. W. Lasch had been deposited, nor in other collections holding specimens collected by Lasch (https://www.sil.si.edu/DigitalCollections/tl-2/history.cfm (accessed on 1 December 2022)), one of the specimens closest to the type location (GLM-F125824) is designated here as a neotype of A. seminudus. In contrast, the two German specimens from the clade with ornamented basidiospores were apparently growing on wood and related to C. pseudoseminuda, which is a species newly described in this study.
Compared with C. seminuda, L. sororia and L. rufipes, which have been reduced to synonyms of C. seminuda by Vellinga in 1987 and 2010 respectively, have larger basidiomata and longer and narrower basidiospores [21,33,36,59]. Furthermore, L. sororia forms larger basidiomata [33] and both the pileus and stipe of L. rufipes were described as smooth and glabrous [59], although Vellinga (2010) inferred that it may be the result of rain washing [36]. Accounting for the difference described above, we temporarily remove L. sororia and L. rufipes from synonyms of C. seminuda until specimens exactly matching the description of the protologue of the two species are found and sequenced.
Pulverolepiota Bon, Docums Mycol. 22(no. 88): 30, 1993.
≡ Leucoagaricus sect. Pulverulenti Bon, Docums Mycol. 8(nos 30-31): 71, 1978.
≡ Cystolepiota sect. Pulverolepiota (Bon) Vellinga, Persoonia 16: 525, 1998.
Type: Lepiota petasiformis Murrill, Mycologia 4(5): 232, 1912.
Notes: Bon (1978) transferred Lepiota pulverulenta to Leucoagaricus Locq. ex Singer and erected Leucoagaricus sect. Pulverulenti Bon typified by Leucoagaricus pulverulentus (Huijsman) Bon [60]. In 1993, he erected a new genus, Pulverolepiota, to accommodate this species [4]. Vellinga and Huijser (1998) subsequently reduced Pulverolepiota to a section of Cystolepiota, C. sect. Pulverolepiota [6]. However, specimens previously identified as C. petasiformes, C. oliveirae, and related species representing Cystolepiota sect. Pulverolepiota form a distinct clade in both phylogenies (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The respective clade in Figure 2 is one of the main clades that represent genera and did not group with the Cystolepiota/Melanophyllum clade, but is sister to the clades formed by Cystolepiota, Melanophyllum, Echinoderma, Smithiomyces, and Lepiota., supporting Pulverolepiota as being a distinct genus rather than a section of Cystolepiota. Therefore, the genus Pulverolepiota Bon (1993) is resurrected here.
Pulverolepiota oliveirae (P. Roux, M. Paraíso, J. P. Maurice, A. C. Normand & F. Fouchier) H. Qu, Damm & Z. W. Ge, comb. nov. Figure 3G,H, Figure 4J,K and Figure 9.
≡ Cystolepiota oliveirae P. Roux, M. Paraíso, J. P. Maurice, A. C. Normand & F. Fouchier, Mycologia Montenegrina 19: 22 2017 (Basionym).
MycoBank: MB847958
Description: Pileus 14 mm in diam, about 18 mm high, plano-conical, with a distinct umbo, surface whitish to cream, covered with thick flocculose squamules, erect at center, brownish orange (6C8) at the center, fading to yellowish or pale orange (5A2-4) or cream toward the margin; margin appendiculate, easily detachable. Lamellae free, wavy, brownish (5B2), distant, up to 2 mm broad, with 2–3 tiers of lamellulae. Stipe 30 × 1.5 mm, light orange (5A5) at the upper part, reddish-orange (7A6-8) at the base, central, hollow, subcylindrical, with a slightly bulbous base; surface smooth, covered with white, flocculose, easily-detachable squamules on the middle part. Context white in stipe and pileus, thin. Odorless; taste not recorded.
Basidiospores [30/1/1] (4–)4.5–5.5(–6) × (2.5–)3–3.5 μm, Q = (1.43–)1.46–1.86(–2.03), Qm = 1.66 ± 0.14, ellipsoid, colorless, thin-walled, nonamyloid, slowly staining to reddish-brown in Melzer’s reagent (after 24 h); metachromatic in cresyl blue; surface distinctly punctate-rough under LM; isolated irregular warts (up to 0.3 µm in height) visible under SEM (Figure 4J,K); apiculus small. Basidia 14.5–18.5 × 5–7 μm, clavate, hyaline, 4-spored; sterigmata 1.5–3 μm long. Lamellar trama regular, made up of colorless cylindrical hyphae, 3–10 μm in diam. Cheilocystidia and pleurocystidia not observed. Squamules mainly composed of loosely arranged, irregular, branched, cylindrical, oblong cells with a brownish, slightly thick wall; rare tightly-arranged globose to subglobose cells present in the midst of loosely arranged cells, 36–55 × 40–70 μm, colorless, covered with thick gelatinous substances. Clamp connections absent (Figure 9).
Specimen examined: China, Yunnan Province, Xishuangbanna Dai Autonomous Prefecture, Jinghong City, Xishuangbanna Primitive Forest Park, on the roadside, 100.8837777° N, 22.0348152° E, alt. 718 m, 5 July 2021, H. Qu 375 (KUN-HKAS 124759).
Habitat and distribution: Solitary or scattered on soil or on a trunk of Dicksonia antarctica in Europe (Portugal), Asia (tropical region of southwestern China) and Australia.
Notes:Pulverolepiota oliveirae was described as C. oliveirae from Portugal [55], characterized by a whitish to cream pileus with erect flocculose squamules, a brown stipe with white flocculose squamules, a lack of cystidia, and rough and slow-staining dextrinoid spores. Our collection represents a new report for China; it matched the protologue of P. oliveirae regarding macro- and micro-characteristics, except for the pileus of the specimen from China that has a distinct umbo. The basidiospores of the specimen from China [(4–)4.5–5.5(–6) × (2.5–)3–3.5 µm] are slightly smaller than those in the protologue of C. oliveirae (5.0–6.4 × 2.9–4.0 µm) [55]. The morphological differences could be explained by population and measurement differences. Furthermore, the ITS sequence is 99.74% identical with the sequence generated from the type specimen (KY472789).
The two closely related species, P. oliveirae and P. petasiformis (=C. pulverulenta) can easily be confused. However, the squamules of C. oliveirae present tightly-arranged globose to subglobose cells among the loosely-arranged cells. Those tightly arranged cells have not been observed in C. petasiformis [5,56]. Paraíso et al. (2016) suggested the size of the basidiospores as a characteristic to distinguish the two species [55]. However, the spores of the collection from China are not significantly larger than those of C. petasiformis. Several Cystolepiota species, including C. fumosifolia, C. pseudofumosifolia, and C. pyramidalis, that are not closely related with P. oliveirae are also similar in the presence of distinct squamules. However, they differ in forming cheilocystidia, inamyloid and non-dextrinoid basidiospores and squamules that are composed of loosely-arranged globose to subglobose cells, while irregular, branched, cylindrical to oblong cells are lacking. Cystolepiota pyramidosquamulosa, a species newly described in this paper, also forms distinct squamules. It can be distinguished from P. oliveirae by having neither amyloid nor dextrinoid basidiospores and forming loosely-arranged globose to subglobose cells in the squamules.
Pulverolepiota petasiformis (Murrill) H. Qu, Damm & Z. W. Ge, comb. nov.
≡ Lepiota petasiformis Murrill, Mycologia 4(5): 232, 1912 (Basionym).
≡ Cystolepiota petasiformis (Murrill) Singer, Agaric. mod. Tax., Edn 2 (Weinheim): 472, 1975. Nom. inval., Art. 35.2 (Melbourne).
≡ Cystolepiota petasiformis (Murrill) Vellinga, Mycotaxon 98: 228, 2006.
= Lepiota pulverulenta Huijsman, Persoonia 1(3): 328, 1960.
≡ Leucoagaricus pulverulentus (Huijsman) Bon, Docums Mycol. 8(nos 30-31): 70, 1978.
≡ Pulverolepiota pulverulenta (Huijsman) Bon, Docums Mycol. 22(no. 88): 30, 1993.
≡ Cystolepiota pulverulenta (Huijsman) Vellinga, Persoonia 14(4): 407, 1992.
≡ Leucoagaricus pulverulentus var. subroseus Bon, Docums Mycol. 8(nos 30-31): 71, 1978.
≡ Pulverolepiota pulverulenta var. subrosea (Bon) Bon, Docums Mycol. 22(no. 88): 30, 1993.
= Leucoagaricus pulverulentus f. minimus Bon, Migl. & Brunori, Docums Mycol. 19(no. 75): 54, 1989.
= Pulverolepiota pulverulenta f. minima (Bon, Migl. & Brunori) Bon, Docums Mycol. 22(no. 88): 30, 1993.
= Cystolepiota pulverulenta f. minima (Bon, Migl. & Brunori) La Chiusa, Riv. Micol. 41(2): 152, 1998.
MycoBank: MB847957
Notes: Pulverolepiota petasiformis was originally described by Murrill (1912) from Washington State, USA as Lepiota petasiformis [61]. Vellinga (2006) transferred it to Cystolepiota after examining its type specimen. Because of the similar morphology, for example, L. petasiformis also lacks clamp connections, she treated the later described L. pulverulenta, a European species and the type species of Pulverolepiota, as a synonym of C. petasiformis, while morphological differences exist as well [5]. Moreover, in molecular analyses of a previous study, sequences from Europe and North America formed a well-supported monophyletic clade (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 in Vellinga 2003) [17]. As the clade including C. petasiformis represents a generic level clade named Pulverolepiota (Figure 2), a new combination Pulverolepiota petasiformis is proposed here.
A total of five sequences of P. petasiformis were included in the ITS phylogeny (Figure 1), including three sequences of collections originally identified as C. pulverulenta by Vellinga [62] and two sequences from GenBank labeled as Cystolepiota sp. The five sequences formed a well-supported clade (MLB = 94%, BPP = 1.00) with a subclade (MLB = 97%, BPP = 1.00) formed by two European sequences. As can be seen in Figure 1, there are large differences between the European and the North American collections, indicating them to be distinct populations that may result from geographical isolation and may represent P. pulverulenta and P. petasiformis respectively. However, there is also a large variability within the specimens from North America. Further collections and studies are needed to evaluate, if P. petasiformis is one variable species or a species complex.

4. Discussion

4.1. Circumscription and Diversity of Cystolepiota and Pulverolepiota

According to the phylogenetic results of this study (Figure 1 and Figure 2), the resurrected genus Pulverolepiota includes P. petasiformis, P. oliveirae and an unnamed species from Hawaii. The main characteristics of Pulverolepiota are: rough basidiospores that are slowly staining reddish-brown in Melzer’s reagent, the absence of clamp connections and cystidia, and pileus-covering elements that are composed of loosely-arranged elongate, branched, irregular, sometimes subglobose or ellipsoid cells. Lepiota roseolanata [≡Leucoagaricus roseolanatus (Huijsman) Bon], a species described by Bon (1962) based on a specimen from Limburg, Netherlands, matches the above characteristics and may be a member of Pulverolepiota. Vellinga noted that Cystolepiota pseudogranulosa (Berk. & Broome) Pegler may belong to Pulverolepiota, while further studies are needed as C. pseudogranulosa forms strongly dextrinoid basidiospores and clamp connections [6,9].
With the exclusion of C. sect. Pulverolepiota, two sections remain in Cystolepiota: C. sect. Cystolepiota that include species with non-dextrinoid basidiospores and C. sect. Pseudoamyloideae with species forming dextrinoid basidiospores. In the present study, three species with dextrinoid basidiospores were included in our phylogenetic analyses, namely C. bucknallii (the type species of C. sect. Pseudoamyloideae), C. icterina, and C. rhodella. However, the three species did not form a clade (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and the sequence of C. constricta Singer, the type species of Cystolepiota, is not available. Thus, further sampling and phylogenetic analyses are needed to verify and revise the infrageneric classification of Cystolepiota.
Melanophyllum is distinguished from Cystolepiota by the formation of reddish-brown to greenish spore prints and ornamented spores [10,12,17]. In this study, we demonstrate that some species of the C. seminuda species complex form ornamented spores as well. Phylogenetic results show that the two genera belong to the same main clade (Figure 2). Specimens previously identified as Melanophyllum did not even form a monophyletic clade within Cystolepiota, which confirms that the above-mentioned spore characteristics are not genus specific. It seems reasonable to synonymize the two genera. However, the name Melanophyllum Velen. 1921 has priority as it was published before Cystolepiota Singer 1952, which means that Cystolepiota would become a synonym of Melanophyllum. It requires careful consideration, if the about 50 current species of Cystolepiota should be transferred to Melanophyllum or to conserve Cystolepiota and subsequently combine the six Melanophyllum species in Cystolepiota. A more comprehensive and robust phylogeny is necessary before combining these, in order to confirm that whether they are congeneric.
Four accepted species are included in Melanophyllum according to Species Fungorum (https://www.speciesfungorum.org/ (accessed on 25 April 2023)). Sequences of two of them, M. haematospermum and M. eyrei, were included in the phylogenetic analyses of this study. The resulting phylogenies (Figure 1 and Figure 2), indicate that the species diversity of Melanophyllum was underestimated and several new species are waiting to be described.
The number of Cystolepiota species including Pulverolepiota and excluding Melanophyllum accepted by different researchers ranges from 10 to 45 [63,64,65,66]. According to Index Fungorum (http://www.indexfungorum.org/ (accessed on 25 April 2023)), 47 Cystolepiota species had been described prior to this study, mostly in the last century. Reports of only seven new species have been published in the past 20 years [55,57,58,67,68,69]. The Cystolepiota species from East Asia, Europe, India, North America, and South America have currently been well-characterized morphologically [5,12,20,66,67,70,71], while only few species were provided with DNA sequence data. Many species, especially those described from South America, have not been recollected since they were published [20].
Several reasons may lead to this limited knowledge of the species diversity of Cystolepiota. (1) The tiny and solitary basidiomata make them easily overlooked in field investigations and mycologists are not inclined to study and describe species based on only one basidioma. For example, C. oliveirae was first recorded in China in this paper based on one basidioma with a pileus that was 1.4 cm in diam. Several potential new species belonging to the C. seminuda complex, such as KUN-HKAS 56447, KUN-HKAS 84333 and KUN-HKAS 84177, that were included in our ITS phylogeny (Figure 1) were not described in the present paper, because there is only one mature basidioma each available for description. (2) The collections of many species, e.g., C. seminuda, C. hetieri (Boud.) Singer, and Melanophyllum haematospermum (Bull.) Kreisel, apparently exhibit almost identical morphological characteristics but show a large variability in their ITS sequences as demonstrated by the phylogenies of this study (Figure 1). This indicates the existence of many cryptic species. With further investigations and research from less studied regions such as Africa and Australia, more Cystolepitoa species are expected to be discovered.

4.2. Circumscription of Species in the Cystolepiota seminuda Species Complex

We regard the species in Clade I and Clade II (Figure 2) as the members of the C. seminuda species complex that includes three named species: C. pseudoseminuda, C. seminuda, and a species represented by specimens that had been identified as Melanophyllum eryei, as well as ten potential new species according to the sequence similarity. The main characteristics of the specimens belonging to the C. seminuda species complex investigated in the present study are: small basidiomata with a whitish pileus covered by pulverulent or granulose squamules that are whitish, cream to pinkish, rarely brownish; free lamellae that are white to cream in most species and greenish in M. eyrei; a stipe with a whitish upper portion and a brownish lower portion, which turns purplish or reddish-brown with age or when touched; a stipe often covered with whitish to cream pulverulent squamules; basidiospores which are ellipsoid, smooth-walled, or rough-walled; absent cheilocystidia and pleurocystidia; clamp connections present. However, collections may meet the above descriptions, but still show certain morphological differences, especially regarding the basidiospores.
Cystolepiota sistrata has been considered as conspecific with C. seminuda [10,15,31,32,33]. We follow the view of Vellinga (1987) [15], who did not use the name C. sistrata because the description in the protologue is too general and Fries made the concept of this species even more ambiguous [30,32,34,35]. As with C. sistrata, several names have been treated as synonyms of C. seminuda, namely: Lepiota sororia, L. seminuda f. minima, and L. rufipes. Different treatments of those names and different characteristics used in the circumscriptions of species in the C. seminuda complex are discussed below.
The size of basidiomata varies within the C. seminuda complex. Some authors consider basidiomata size as an important characteristic for distinguishing Cystolepiota species. Lepiota seminuda f. minima and Lepiota sistrata f. minima (both Nom. inval., Art. 39.1, Melbourne) are different from C. seminuda because of the smaller pileus (8 mm in diam) and the more slender stipe (<1 mm in diam) [72]. However, based on this study, these dimensions are within the morphological variability of C. seminuda. In contrast, Huijsman described Lepiota sororia, which was considered a synonym of C. seminuda by Vellinga [21,33], with a pileus of 12–30 mm diam and a stipe measuring 30–70 × 1–3 mm, which is larger than that determined for C. seminuda in this study.
The descriptions of basidiospore size and shape of C. seminuda are inconsistent in different studies. Although the spores are basically elliptical, some authors have noticed variations in spore shape [21,66]. Vellinga (1987) described the spores as ellipsoid to oblong and measured 3.5–5.0(–5.5) × 2.0–3.0 µm with a Q value of 1.35–2.1(–2.2); the spores Yang (2019) described were broadly ellipsoid to ellipsoid and measured 3.5–4.5 × 2.5–3 µm, Q value is 1.25–1.67(–1.80). Thus, the specimens studied in the two articles may belong to different species, C. pseudoseminuda, C. seminuda or further species of the C. seminuda species complex. The two species described in this paper, C. pseudoseminuda and C. seminuda, also vary in size and shape of basidiospores. Based on measurements by Vellinga (1987) [21], the holotype of Lepiota sororia has longer and narrower basidiospores: (4.2–)4.6–5.3(–5.4) × (2.1–)2.3–2.9(–3.0) µm, Q = (1.65–)1.7–2.1(–2.2). Vellinga (2010a) also studied the holotype of Lepiota rufipes [36], a species described from the USA, which she treated as a synonym of C. seminuda. The basidiospores of L. rufipes measured 4.1–4.9 × 2.4–2.8 µm, Q = 1.65–2.05, Qm = 1.85, is larger than the basidiospores of C. seminuda measured in this study. Some collections regarded as C. seminuda formed even larger basidiospores [20,21,73]. Although general differences in shape and size of spores of C. pseudoseminuda and C. seminuda were determined in this study, considerable variations among different fruit bodies were observed in both species (Figure 6). Thus, when describing new species from the C. seminuda complex, as many specimens as possible from different locations need to be examined.
In most previous studies, basidiospores of C. seminuda are described as smooth-walled, but in some as smooth-walled or with insignificant warts [12,66]. Based on molecular data, we revealed that the C. seminuda complex consists of two clades. Observations of basidiospores with SEM suggest that species of Clade I form ornamented basidiospores, while species of clade II form smooth-walled basidiospores (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Thus, the ornamentation of basidiospores is a key characteristic to distinguish species within the C. seminuda complex. In addition, the basidiospores of the type specimen of L. sororia have a smooth-walled surface (Figure 4H,I), indicating that this species may belong to clade II.
The basidiospores of all specimens involved in this study are non-dextrinoid. In contrast, basidiospores of the “C. seminuda” collections from South America were reported as being dextrinoid [20,73]. This could be an indication that these collections also represent different species. However, whether the chemical reactions of basidiospores are useful for identification of species in this complex requires further study.
According to the discussion above, which was based on the examination of accessible specimens and the literature review, the species in the Cystolepiota seminuda complex can be differentiated by a combination of the following characteristics: basidiomata size, spore size and shape, ornamentation of spores, and DNA sequence data.
The species in the C. seminuda complex show different geographic distribution patterns. For example, C. seminuda is widely distributed in the temperate and subtropical zones of the Northern Hemisphere, while C. pseudoseminuda has so far only been collected in the subtropical zones of China. Further species in this complex are so far only represented by specimens from China and from North America, respectively. This indicates that geographic distribution may support the species differentiation within the C. seminuda complex.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jof9050537/s1, Table S1: Taxa, vouchers and GenBank accession numbers used in the molecular analyses of the ITS data set; Table S2: Taxa, vouchers and GenBank accession numbers used in the molecular analyses of the four-gene data set; Figure S1. Maximum likelihood tree inferred from subsampled ITS sequences of specimens of Cystolepiota and related genera; Figure S2. Maximum likelihood tree inferred from LSU sequences of specimens of Cystolepiota and related genera; Figure S3. Maximum likelihood tree inferred from rpb2 sequences of specimens of Cystolepiota and related genera; Figure S4. Maximum likelihood tree inferred from tef1 sequences of specimens of Cystolepiota and related genera; Figure S5. Maximum likelihood tree inferred from the combined rpb2-tef1 sequence data set of specimens of Cystolepiota and related genera; Figure S6. Maximum likelihood tree inferred from the combined LSU-rpb2-tef1 sequence data set of specimens of Cystolepiota and related genera.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.-W.G.; molecular experiments and data analysis, H.Q., Y.-J.H., U.D. and Z.-W.G.; writing—original draft preparation, H.Q. and. Y.-J.H.; writing—review and editing, Z.-W.G. and U.D.; supervision, Z.-W.G.; funding acquisition, Z.-W.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Biodiversity Survey and Assessment Project of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, China (No. 2019HJ209001006), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (nos. 31872619 and 31670024), the Digitalization, Development and Application of Biotic Resources (202002AA100007), and the Talent Project of Yunnan (No. 202005AC160037).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The sequences presented in this study are openly available in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ (accessed on 25 July 2022) (see the Tables S1 and S2 for the accession numbers). The alignments and phylogenetic tree files are available in FigShare at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22284127.v1 (accessed on 16 March 2023). All new taxa were registered in MycoBank (http://www.mycobank.org/ (accessed on 16 March 2023)).

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to E.C. Vellinga (University of California, Berkeley) for providing SEM images of spores of Lepiota sororia. G.J. Li (Hebei Agricultural University) is thanked for providing information on the locality of HBAU15446. We are grateful to Z.L. Yang (Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences), X.T. Zhu (Northwest Normal University) for providing valuable specimens and images. We thank Z.J. Gu (Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences) for assistance in taking SEM images.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Singer, R.; Digilio, A.P.L. Pródromo de la Flora Agaricina Argentina. Lilloa 1951, 25, 5–461. [Google Scholar]
  2. Knudsen, H. Notes on Cystolepiota Sing. and Lepiota S.F. Gray. Bot. Tidsskr. 1978, 73, 124–136. [Google Scholar]
  3. Singer, R.; Clemençon, H. Notes on some leucosporous and rhodosporus European Agarics. Nova Hedwig. 1972, 23, 305–351. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bon, M. Famille Lepiotaceae Roze ex Overeem. Doc. Mycol. 1993, 22, 27–32. [Google Scholar]
  5. Vellinga, E.C. Lepiotaceous fungi in California, U.S.A. 4. Type studies of Lepiota fumosifolia and L. petasiformis. Mycotaxon 2006, 98, 225–232. [Google Scholar]
  6. Vellinga, E.C.; Huijser, H.A. Notes on Cystolepiota: Sections Cystolepiota and Pulverolepiota. Persoonia 1998, 16, 513–526. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bon, M. Les lépiotes de l’herbier Boudier au Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle de Paris. Doc. Mycol. 1977, 7, 11–22. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bon, M. Clé monographique des ‘Lépiotes’ d’Europe. Doc. Mycol. 1981, 11, 1–77. [Google Scholar]
  9. Pegler, D.N. Agaric Flora of Sri Lanka; Royal Botanic Cardens; KEW: London, UK, 1986; Volume 12, p. 519. [Google Scholar]
  10. Candusso, M.; Lanzoni, G. Lepiota S.L. Fungi Europaei 4; Giovanna Biella: Saronno, Italy, 1990; p. 743. [Google Scholar]
  11. Knudsen, H. A revision of Lepiota sect. Echinatae and Amyloideae (Agaricaceae) in Europe. Bot. Tidsskr. 1980, 75, 121–155. [Google Scholar]
  12. Noordeloos, M.E.; Kuyper, T.W.; Vellinga, E.C. Flora Agaricina Neerlandica: Critical Monographs on Families of Agarics and Boleti Occurring in The Netherlands; August Aimé Balkema: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001; Volume 5, p. 169. [Google Scholar]
  13. Pegler, D.N. A revision of the genus Lepiota from Ceylon. Kew Bull. 1972, 27, 155–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Pegler, D.N. A Preliminary Agaric Flora of East Africa; Kew Bulletin Additional Series; KEW: London, UK, 1977; Volume 6, p. 615. [Google Scholar]
  15. Singer, R. The Agaricales in Modern Taxonomy; Koeltz Scientific Books: Koenigstein, Germany, 1986; p. 981. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bon, M. Les genres Echinoderma (Locq. ex Bon) st. nov. et Rugosomyces Raithelhuber ss. lato. Doc. Mycol. 1991, 21, 61–66. [Google Scholar]
  17. Vellinga, E.C. Phylogeny of Lepiota (Agaricaceae)—Evidence from nrITS and nrLSU sequences. Mycol. Prog. 2003, 2, 305–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hou, Y.J.; Ge, Z.-W. New species of Echinoderma and Lepiota (Agaricaceae) from China. Phytotaxa 2020, 447, 221–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ge, Z.-W.; Xu, T.X.; Qu, H.; Ma, Y.R. Three new species of Smithiomyces from tropical Asia support an amphi-Pacific disjunct distribution in the genus. Mycologia 2021, 113, 1009–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Albuquerque, M.; Victoria, F.; Egres, C.; Putzke, J.; Pereira, A. Cystolepiota Singer (Agaricales) na Amazônia, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Sul (Brasil) e Tucumã (Argentina). Neotrop. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 12, 48–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Vellinga, E.C. Notes on Cystolepiota seminuda. Persoonia 1987, 13, 321–325. [Google Scholar]
  22. Yang, Z.L. Fungi Lepiotoidei (Agaricaceae); Science Press: Beijing, China, 2019; Volume 52, p. 230. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lasch, W.G. Enumeratio Agaricorum Marchiae Brandenburgicae, nondum in Floris nostratibus nominatorum, cum observationibus in cognitos et novorum descriptionibus. Linnaea 1828, 3, 152–162. [Google Scholar]
  24. Bon, M. Novitates. Doc. Mycol. 1976, 6, 41–46. [Google Scholar]
  25. Fayod, V. Prodrome d’une histoire naturelle des Agaricinés. Ann. Sci. Naturelles. Bot. Biol. Vég. 1889, 7, 181–477. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kummer, P. Der Führer in Die Pilzkunde: Anleitung Zum Methodischen, Leichten und Sichern Bestimmen Der in Deutschland Vorkommenden Pilze: Mit Ausnahme Der Schimmel-und Allzu Winzigen Schleim-Und Kern-Pilzchen; Verlag Von E; Luppe’s Buchhandlung: Zerbst, Germany, 1871; p. 146. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kuntze, O. Revisio Generum Plantarum:Vascularium Omnium atque Cellularium Multarum Secundum Leges Nomenclaturae Internationales cum Enumeratione Plantarum Exoticarum in Itinere Mundi Collectarum. Pars II; Arthur Felix: Leipzig, Germany, 1891; p. 1011. [Google Scholar]
  28. Quélet, L. Mémoires de la societe d’émulation de montbeliard ser. 2. In Les Champignons du Jura et des Vosges; Baillière: Paris, France, 1872; pp. 43–332. [Google Scholar]
  29. Bon, M. Novitates-Validations de taxons (ouvrage général en préparation). Doc. Mycol. 1985, 15, 51–52. [Google Scholar]
  30. Fries, E.M. Systema Mycologicum: Sistens Fungorum Ordines, Genera et Species, Huc Usque Cognitas, Quas ad Normam Methodi Naturalis Determinavit; Ex Officina Berlingiana: Lundae, Norway, 1821; Volume 1, p. 520. [Google Scholar]
  31. Fries, E.M. Systema Mycologicum: Sistens Fungorum Ordines, Genera et Species, Huc Usque Cognitas, Quas ad Normam Methodi Naturalis Determinavit, Index; Ex Officina Berlingiana: Lundae, Norway, 1832; p. 202. [Google Scholar]
  32. Fries, E.M. Monographia Lepiotarum Sueciae; Leffler, C.A., Ed.; Reg. Acad. Typographia: Uppsala, Sweden, 1854; p. 17. [Google Scholar]
  33. Huijsman, H.S.C. Observations sur les Lepioteae Fayod. Persoonia 1960, 1, 325–329. [Google Scholar]
  34. Fries, E.M. Hymenomycetes Europaei Sive Epicriseos Systematis Mycologici; Typis Descripsit ed.; Berling: Uppsala, Sweden, 1874; p. 755. [Google Scholar]
  35. Fries, E.M. Epicrisis Systematis Mycologici, Seu Synopsis Hymenonycetum; Typographia Academica: Uppsala, Sweden, 1936; p. 610. [Google Scholar]
  36. Vellinga, E.C. Lepiota in California: Species with a hymeniform pileus covering. Mycologia 2010, 102, 664–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Alanbagi, R.; Alshuwaili, F.; Stephenson, S. Fungi associated with forest floor litter in northwest Arkansas. Curr. Res. Environ. Appl. Mycol. 2019, 9, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Vellinga, E.C. Genera in the family Agaricaceae: Evidence from nrITS and nrLSU sequences. Mycol. Res. 2004, 108, 354–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Kornerup, A.; Wanscher, J.H. Methuen Handbook of Colour, 3rd ed.; Methuen Ltd.: London, UK, 1978; p. 252. [Google Scholar]
  40. R-Core-Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Available online: https://www.r-project.org/ (accessed on 1 July 2022).
  41. Wickham, H. Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2009; p. 205. [Google Scholar]
  42. Gardes, M.; Bruns, T.D. ITS primers with enhanced specificity for Basidiomycetes—Application to the identification of mycorrhizae and rusts. Mol. Ecol. 1993, 2, 113–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. White, T.; Bruns, T.; Lee, S.; Taylor, J. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In PCR Protocols: A Guide to Methods and Applications; Innis, M., Gelfand, D., Sninsky, J., White, T., Eds.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1990; Volume 31, pp. 315–322. [Google Scholar]
  44. Cubeta, M.A.; Echandi, E.; Abernethy, T.; Vilgalys, R. Characterization of anastomosis groups of binucleate Rhizoctonia species using restriction analysis of an amplified ribosomal RNA gene. Phytopathology 1991, 81, 1395–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Vilgalys, R.; Hester, M. Rapid genetic identification and mapping of enzymatically amplified ribosomal DNA from several Cryptococcus species. J. Bacteriol. 1990, 18, 315–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. 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]
  47. Rehner, S.; Buckley, E. A Beauveria phylogeny inferred from nuclear ITS and EF1-alpha sequences: Evidence for cryptic diversification and links to Cordyceps teleomorphs. Mycologia 2005, 97, 84–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. 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]
  49. Capella-Gutierrez, S.; Silla-Martinez, J.M.; Gabaldon, T. trimAl: A tool for automated alignment trimming in large-scale phylogenetic analyses. Bioinformatics 2009, 25, 1972–1973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Larsson, A. AliView: A fast and lightweight alignment viewer and editor for large datasets. Bioinformatics 2014, 30, 3276–3278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Zhang, D.; Gao, F.L.; Jakovlic, I.; Zou, H.; Zhang, J.; Li, W.X.; Wang, G.T. PhyloSuite: An integrated and scalable desktop platform for streamlined molecular sequence data management and evolutionary phylogenetics studies. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2020, 20, 348–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Lanfear, R.; Frandsen, P.B.; Wright, A.M.; Senfeld, T.; Calcott, B. PartitionFinder 2: New methods for selecting partitioned models of evolution for molecular and morphological phylogenetic analyses. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2017, 34, 772–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ronquist, F.; Teslenko, M.; van der Mark, P.; Ayres, D.L.; Darling, A.; Hohna, S.; Larget, B.; Liu, L.; Suchard, M.A.; 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]
  54. Stamatakis, A. RAxML version 8: A tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 2014, 30, 1312–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Paraíso, M.; Maurice, J.-P.; Normand, A.-C.; Fouchier, F.; Roux, P. Cystolepiota oliveirae sp. nov., harvested in Portugal on trunk of dead tree ferns. Mycol. Montenegrina 2016, 19, 21–31. [Google Scholar]
  56. Vellinga, E.C. Notulae Ad Floram Agaricinam Neerlandicam. 18. Some Notes on Cystolepiota and Lepiota. Persoonia 1992, 14, 407–415. [Google Scholar]
  57. Sysouphanthong, P.; Thongklang, N.; Liu, Y.; Vellinga, E. Three new species of Cystolepiota from Laos and Thailand. Diversity 2022, 14, 449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Xu, M.L.; Li, G.J.; Zhou, J.L.; Bai, X.M.; Zhao, R.L. New species of Cystolepiota from China. Mycology 2016, 7, 165–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Morgan, A.P. North American species of Lepiota. J. Mycol. 1906, 12, 154–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bon, M. Novitates-Taxons nouveaux. Doc. Mycol. 1978, 8, 69–71. [Google Scholar]
  61. Murrill, W.A. The Agaricaceae of the Pacific coast—II. Mycologia 1912, 4, 231–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Vellinga, E.C. Studies in Lepiota III. Some species from California, U.S.A. Mycotaxon 2001, 80, 285–295. [Google Scholar]
  63. He, M.Q.; Zhao, R.L.; Hyde, K.D.; Begerow, D.; Kemler, M.; Yurkov, A.; McKenzie, E.H.C.; Raspé, O.; Kakishima, M.; Sánchez Ramírez, S.; et al. Notes, outline and divergence times of Basidiomycota. Fungal Divers. 2019, 99, 105–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kalichman, J.; Kirk, P.M.; Matheny, P.B. A compendium of generic names of agarics and Agaricales. Taxon 2020, 69, 425–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Vellinga, E.C. Nomenclatural Overview of Lepiotaceous Fungi (Agaricaceae). Version 2010, 4, 11. [Google Scholar]
  66. Yang, Z.L. Flora Fungorum Sinicorum, Fungi Lepiotaoidei (Agaricaceae); Science Press: Beijing, China, 2019; Volume 52, p. 230. [Google Scholar]
  67. Arun Kumar, T.K.; Manimohan, P. The genus Cystolepiota (Agaricales, Basidiomycota) in Kerala State, India. Mycotaxon 2009, 107, 277–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Bau, T.; Li, Y. Lepiota squamulosa, a new species from China. J. Fungal Res. 2004, 2, 49–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Yang, Z.L.; Ge, Z.-W. Six new combinations of lepiotaceous fungi from China. Mycosystema 2017, 36, 542–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Gierczyk, B.; Kujawa, A.; Szczepkowski, A.; Chachua, P. Rare species of Lepiota and related genera. Acta Mycol. 2011, 46, 137–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hausknecht, A.; Pidlich-Aigner, H. Lepiotaceae (Schirmlinge) in Österreich. 1. Die Gattungen Chamaemyces, Chlorophyllum, Cystolepiota, Leucoagaricus, Leucocoprinus, Macrolepiota, Melanophyllum und Sericeomyces. Osterr. Z. Für. Pilzkd. 2004, 13, 1–38. [Google Scholar]
  72. Lange, J.E. Flora Agaricina Danica VOLI; Recato A/S: Copenhagen, Denmark, 1935; p. 90. [Google Scholar]
  73. Albuquerque, M.; Pereira, A.B. A família Agaricaceae Chevall. em trechos de Mata Atlântica da Reserva Biológica do Tinguá, Nova Iguaçu, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil: Gêneros Agaricus, Cystolepiota e Lepiota. Acta Bot. Bras. 2010, 24, 497–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jof 09 00537 g001 550
Figure 1. Maximum likelihood tree based on ITS (the nuc rDNA internal transcribed spacer region ITS1-5.8S-ITS2) sequences of specimens of Cystolepiota and related genera. Bootstrap values of ML ≥ 50%, and BI ≥ 0.90 are indicated above the branches (ML/BI). Specimens sequenced within this study are in bold. Type collections are marked with an asterisk. The clades representing the C. seminuda complex are highlighted by grey boxes. C. = Cystolepiota; E. = Echinoderma; M. = Melanophyllum; P. = Pulverolepiota. E. flavidoasperum, E. asperum and E. hystrix are used as outgroup.
Figure 1. Maximum likelihood tree based on ITS (the nuc rDNA internal transcribed spacer region ITS1-5.8S-ITS2) sequences of specimens of Cystolepiota and related genera. Bootstrap values of ML ≥ 50%, and BI ≥ 0.90 are indicated above the branches (ML/BI). Specimens sequenced within this study are in bold. Type collections are marked with an asterisk. The clades representing the C. seminuda complex are highlighted by grey boxes. C. = Cystolepiota; E. = Echinoderma; M. = Melanophyllum; P. = Pulverolepiota. E. flavidoasperum, E. asperum and E. hystrix are used as outgroup.
Jof 09 00537 g001
Jof 09 00537 g002 550
Figure 2. Maximum likelihood tree inferred from a combined data set of ITS, LSU (the D1–D2 domains of nuc 28S rDNA), rpb2 (the most variable region of the second-largest subunit of RNA polymerase II), and tef1 (a portion of the translation–elongation factor 1-α) sequences of specimens of Cystolepiota and related genera. Bootstrap values of ML ≥ 50%, and BI ≥ 0.90 are indicated above the branches (ML/BI). Specimens sequenced within this study are in bold. Type collections are marked with an asterisk. The clade standing for C. seminuda complex is highlighted by a grey box. C. = Cystolepiota; Co. = Coprinus; E. = Echinoderma; L. = Lepiota; M. = Melanophyllum; P. = Pulverolepiota; S. = Smithiomyces. Co. comatus and Co. sterquilinus are used as outgroup.
Figure 2. Maximum likelihood tree inferred from a combined data set of ITS, LSU (the D1–D2 domains of nuc 28S rDNA), rpb2 (the most variable region of the second-largest subunit of RNA polymerase II), and tef1 (a portion of the translation–elongation factor 1-α) sequences of specimens of Cystolepiota and related genera. Bootstrap values of ML ≥ 50%, and BI ≥ 0.90 are indicated above the branches (ML/BI). Specimens sequenced within this study are in bold. Type collections are marked with an asterisk. The clade standing for C. seminuda complex is highlighted by a grey box. C. = Cystolepiota; Co. = Coprinus; E. = Echinoderma; L. = Lepiota; M. = Melanophyllum; P. = Pulverolepiota; S. = Smithiomyces. Co. comatus and Co. sterquilinus are used as outgroup.
Jof 09 00537 g002
Jof 09 00537 g003 550
Figure 3. Basidiomata of Cystolepiota and Pulverolepiota species. (A–C). C. pseudoseminuda. (A). KUN-HKAS 92275(Holotype). (B,C). KUN-HKAS 73969. (D–F). C. seminuda. (D). KUN-HKAS 106008. (E). KUN-HKAS 106016. (F). KUN-HKAS 54211. (G,H). P. oliveirae. KUN-HKAS 124759. (I). C. pyramidosquamulosa. KUN-HKAS 53985 (Holotype). Bars = 1 cm.
Figure 3. Basidiomata of Cystolepiota and Pulverolepiota species. (A–C). C. pseudoseminuda. (A). KUN-HKAS 92275(Holotype). (B,C). KUN-HKAS 73969. (D–F). C. seminuda. (D). KUN-HKAS 106008. (E). KUN-HKAS 106016. (F). KUN-HKAS 54211. (G,H). P. oliveirae. KUN-HKAS 124759. (I). C. pyramidosquamulosa. KUN-HKAS 53985 (Holotype). Bars = 1 cm.
Jof 09 00537 g003
Jof 09 00537 g004 550
Figure 4. Basidiospores of Cystolepiota and Pulverolepiota species under SEM. (A,B). C. aff. pseudoseminuda 1. (A). GLM-F116532. (B). GLM-F061278. (C,D). C. pseudoseminuda. (C). KUN-HKAS 92275 (Holotype). (D). KUN-HKAS 73969. (E–G). C. seminuda. (E). KUN-HKAS 106016. (F). GLM-F125824 (Neotype). (G). GLM-F042189. (H,I). Lepiota sororia. L0054151 (Holotype). (J,K). P. oliveirae. KUN-HKAS 124759. (L). C. pyramidosquamulosa. KUN-HKAS 53985 (Holotype). Bars = 1 μm.
Figure 4. Basidiospores of Cystolepiota and Pulverolepiota species under SEM. (A,B). C. aff. pseudoseminuda 1. (A). GLM-F116532. (B). GLM-F061278. (C,D). C. pseudoseminuda. (C). KUN-HKAS 92275 (Holotype). (D). KUN-HKAS 73969. (E–G). C. seminuda. (E). KUN-HKAS 106016. (F). GLM-F125824 (Neotype). (G). GLM-F042189. (H,I). Lepiota sororia. L0054151 (Holotype). (J,K). P. oliveirae. KUN-HKAS 124759. (L). C. pyramidosquamulosa. KUN-HKAS 53985 (Holotype). Bars = 1 μm.
Jof 09 00537 g004
Jof 09 00537 g005 550
Figure 5. Microscopic features of Cystolepiota pseudoseminuda (Holotype, KUN-HKAS 92275). (A): Basidiospores. (B): Basidia. (C): Squamule cells. Bars: (A) = 5 μm; (B,C) = 10 μm.
Figure 5. Microscopic features of Cystolepiota pseudoseminuda (Holotype, KUN-HKAS 92275). (A): Basidiospores. (B): Basidia. (C): Squamule cells. Bars: (A) = 5 μm; (B,C) = 10 μm.
Jof 09 00537 g005
Jof 09 00537 g006 550
Figure 6. The scatter diagram of spore lengths and spore length–width ratios of species in the Cystolepiota seminuda complex.
Figure 6. The scatter diagram of spore lengths and spore length–width ratios of species in the Cystolepiota seminuda complex.
Jof 09 00537 g006
Jof 09 00537 g007 550
Figure 7. Microscopic features of Cystolepiota pyramidosquamulosa (Holotype KUN-HKAS 53985). (A): Basidiospores. (B): Basidia. (C): Squamule cells. Bars: (A) = 5 μm; (B,C) = 10 μm.
Figure 7. Microscopic features of Cystolepiota pyramidosquamulosa (Holotype KUN-HKAS 53985). (A): Basidiospores. (B): Basidia. (C): Squamule cells. Bars: (A) = 5 μm; (B,C) = 10 μm.
Jof 09 00537 g007
Jof 09 00537 g008 550
Figure 8. Microscopic features of Cystolepiota seminuda. (A): Basidiospores. (B): Basidia. (C): Squamule cells. (A,B) from GLM-F109912, (C) from KUN-HKAS 106016. Bars: (A) = 5 μm; (B,C) = 10 μm.
Figure 8. Microscopic features of Cystolepiota seminuda. (A): Basidiospores. (B): Basidia. (C): Squamule cells. (A,B) from GLM-F109912, (C) from KUN-HKAS 106016. Bars: (A) = 5 μm; (B,C) = 10 μm.
Jof 09 00537 g008
Jof 09 00537 g009 550
Figure 9. Microscopic features of Cystolepiota oliveirae (KUN-HKAS 124759). (A): Basidiospores. (B): Basidia. (C): Tightly arranged squamule cells. (D): loosely arranged squamule cells. Bars: (A) = 5 μm; (B) = 10 μm. (C) = 20 μm. (D) = 20 μm.
Figure 9. Microscopic features of Cystolepiota oliveirae (KUN-HKAS 124759). (A): Basidiospores. (B): Basidia. (C): Tightly arranged squamule cells. (D): loosely arranged squamule cells. Bars: (A) = 5 μm; (B) = 10 μm. (C) = 20 μm. (D) = 20 μm.
Jof 09 00537 g009
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Qu, H.; Damm, U.; Hou, Y.-J.; Ge, Z.-W. Taxonomy and Phylogeny of Cystolepiota (Agaricaceae, Agaricales): New Species, New Combinations and Notes on the C. seminuda Complex. J. Fungi 2023, 9, 537. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9050537

AMA Style

Qu H, Damm U, Hou Y-J, Ge Z-W. Taxonomy and Phylogeny of Cystolepiota (Agaricaceae, Agaricales): New Species, New Combinations and Notes on the C. seminuda Complex. Journal of Fungi. 2023; 9(5):537. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9050537

Chicago/Turabian Style

Qu, Hua, Ulrike Damm, Ya-Jun Hou, and Zai-Wei Ge. 2023. "Taxonomy and Phylogeny of Cystolepiota (Agaricaceae, Agaricales): New Species, New Combinations and Notes on the C. seminuda Complex" Journal of Fungi 9, no. 5: 537. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9050537

APA Style

Qu, H., Damm, U., Hou, Y. -J., & Ge, Z. -W. (2023). Taxonomy and Phylogeny of Cystolepiota (Agaricaceae, Agaricales): New Species, New Combinations and Notes on the C. seminuda Complex. Journal of Fungi, 9(5), 537. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9050537

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