Russula parvovirescens sp. nov., a common but ignored species in the eastern United States

Abstract

Russula parvovirescens sp. nov. is described from the eastern United States. It is a rather common species that previously was mistaken for a small R. virescens or a green form of R. crustosa. The large and characteristic extremities that compose the pileipellis allow easy identification with the microscope or even with a good hand lens. The new species is described here, illustrated in detail and compared with R. virescens and R. crustosa.

Advances in the phylogenesis of Agaricales and its higher ranks and strategies for establishing phylogenetic hypotheses

“…In operational terms this could most easily be achieved by the use of the MSC, and supplementary reference to the entities defined as BSC or PSC (Burnett, 2003). There are many examples where new or old taxa are recognized based on morphological and molecular phylogenetic data (Blanco-Dios et al, 2006;Bruns et al, 1998;Buyck et al, 2006;Callac and Guinberteau, 2005;Capelari et al, 2006;Dai et al, 2006;Desjardin et al, 2004;Miller and Huhndorf, 2004;Minnis et al, 2006, Wang et al, 2002, but also where morphological data are only presented (Antonin and Barrasa et al, 2006;Nuytinck et al, 2006) including occasionally with mating type studies (Tan et al, 2007).…”

A preliminary DNA barcode selection for the genus Russula (Russulales, Basidiomycota)

“…was originally described from Europe, while the illustrations of "Russula virescens" in some previous North American field guide books (Metzler and Metzler 1992, Roody 2003, Miller OK and Miller HH 2006, Kuo 2007 have been proved to be R. parvovirescens Buyck, D. Mitch. & Parrent; the "R. virescens-R. crustosa" group in North America is suggested to be much more complex than suspected, which contains at least a dozen of Russula taxa in the eastern US (Buyck et al 2006;Kuo 2007). Another similar example is "R. vinosa Lindblad" in several Chinese fungal monographs (Teng 1963;Tai 1979;Ying et al 1982Ying et al , 1987 should be another species and named as R. griseocarnosa X.H.…”