The most dramatic shifts in the classification relative to previous works concern the groups that have traditionally been included in the Chytridiomycota and Zygomycota. The Chytridiomycota is retained in a restricted sense, with Blastocladiomycota and Neocallimastigomycota representing segregate phyla of flagellated Fungi. Taxa traditionally placed in Zygomycota are distributed among Glomeromycota and several subphyla incertae sedis, including Mucoromycotina, Entomophthoromycotina, Kickxellomycotina, and Zoopagomycotina. Microsporidia are included in the Fungi, but no further subdivision of the group is proposed. Several genera of 'basal' Fungi of uncertain position are not placed in any higher taxa, including Basidiobolus, Caulochytrium, Olpidium, and Rozella.

No abstract

The Amsterdam Declaration on Fungal Nomenclature was agreed at an international symposium convened in Amsterdam on 19–20 April 2011 under the auspices of the International Commission on the Taxonomy of Fungi (ICTF). The purpose of the symposium was to address the issue of whether or how the current system of naming pleomorphic fungi should be maintained or changed now that molecular data are routinely available. The issue is urgent as mycologists currently follow different practices, and no consensus was achieved by a Special Committee appointed in 2005 by the International Botanical Congress to advise on the problem. The Declaration recognizes the need for an orderly transitition to a single-name nomenclatural system for all fungi, and to provide mechanisms to protect names that otherwise then become endangered. That is, meaning that priority should be given to the first described name, except where that is a younger name in general use when the first author to select a name of a pleomorphic monophyletic genus is to be followed, and suggests controversial cases are referred to a body, such as the ICTF, which will report to the Committee for Fungi. If appropriate, the ICTF could be mandated to promote the implementation of the Declaration. In addition, but not forming part of the Declaration, are reports of discussions held during the symposium on the governance of the nomenclature of fungi, and the naming of fungi known only from an environmental nucleic acid sequence in particular. Possible amendments to the Draft BioCode (2011) to allow for the needs of mycologists are suggested for further consideration, and a possible example of how a fungus only known from the environment might be described is presented.

Data on macrofungal diversity and distribution patterns were compiled for major geographical regions of the world. Macrofungi are defined here to include ascomycetes and basidiomycetes with large, easily observed spore-bearing structures that form above or below ground. Each coauthor either provided data on a partic ular taxonomic group of macrofungi or information on the macrofungi of a specific [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] geographic area. We then employed a meta-analysis to investigate species overlaps between areas, levels of endemism, centers of diversity, and estimated percent of species known for each taxonomic group for each geographic area and for the combined macrofungal data set. Thus, the study provides both a meta-analysis of current data and a gap assessment to help identify research needs. In all, 21,679 names of macrofungi were compiled. The percentage of unique names for each region ranged from 37% for temperate Asia to 72% for Australasia. Approximately 35,000 macrofungal species were estimated to be ''unknown'' by the contributing authors. This would give an estimated total of 56,679 macrofungi. Our compiled species list does not include data from most of S.E. Europe, Africa, western Asia, or tropical eastern Asia. Even so, combining our list of names with the estimates from contributing authors is in line with our calculated estimate of between 53,000 and 110,000 macrofungal species derived using plant/macrofungal species ratio data. The estimates developed in this study are consistent with a hypothesis of high overall fungal species diversity.

No abstract

Molecular phylogenies using 1-4 gene regions and information on ecology, morphology and pigment chemistry were used in a partial revision of the agaric family Hygrophoraceae. The phylogenetically supported genera we recognize here in the Hygrophoraceae based on these and previous analyses are: Acantholichen, Ampulloclitocybe, Arrhenia, Cantharellula, Cantharocybe, Chromosera, Chrysomphalina, Cora, Corella, Cuphophyllus, Cyphellostereum, Dictyonema, Eonema, Gliophorus, Haasiella, Humidicutis, Hygroaster, Hygrocybe, Hygrophorus, Lichenomphalia, Neohygrocybe, Porpolomopsis and Pseudoarmillariella. A new genus that is sister to Chromosera is described as Gloioxanthomyces. Revisions were made at the ranks of subfamily, tribe, genus, subgenus, section and subsection. We present three new subfamilies, eight tribes (five new), eight subgenera (one new, one new combination and one stat. nov.), 26 sections (five new and three new combinations and two stat. nov.) and 14 subsections (two new, two stat. nov.). Species of Chromosera, Gliophorus, Humidicutis, and Neohygrocybe are often treated within the genus Hygrocybe; we therefore provide valid names in both classification systems. We used a minimalist approach in transferring genera and creating new names and combinations. Consequently, we retain in the Hygrophoraceae the basal cuphophylloid grade comprising the genera Cuphophyllus, Ampulloclitocybe and Cantharocybe, despite weak phylogenetic support. We include Aeruginospora and Semiomphalina in Hygrophoraceae based on morphology though molecular data are lacking. The lower hygrophoroid clade is basal to Hygrophoraceae s.s., comprising the genera Aphroditeola, Macrotyphula, Phyllotopsis, Pleurocybella, Sarcomyxa, Tricholomopsis and Typhula.

Summary Redhead, S. A., Vilgalys, R., Moncalvo, J.‐M., Johnson, J. & Hopple, J. S., Jr.: Coprinus Pers. and the disposition of Coprinus species sensu lato. – Taxon 50: 203–241. 2001. –1SSN 0040–0262. Based upon molecular studies, the genus Coprinus Pers. is subdivided into Coprinus sensu stricto (Agaricaceae), and Coprinellus P. Karst., Coprinopsis P. Karst., and Parasola gen. nov. in the new family Psathyrellaceae. The nomenclatural history and typifications of names previously treated as synonyms of Coprinus are reviewed. It is demonstrated that taxonomic characters previously considered not to be generically significant gain importance when correlated with molecular evidence. Many new combinations are proposed. A key using anatomical features to molecularly (phylogenetically) recognised coprinoid genera is provided.

No abstract