Flag for Taxon: Genus Nolanea
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| petragloyn | sea-kangaroo | Genus Nolanea |
It's a synonym of Entoloma. |
Apr. 28, 2020 22:27:33 +0000 | nschwab |
Reworked whole Entoloma genus |
Comments
The general view in Europe for many years has been to treat the various genera as synonyms of Entoloma, whereas in the US there was a preference to maintain the individual genera. As far as I'm aware the current phylogenetic data shows some clearly supported clades within the super-genus Entoloma but they don't necessarily correspond cleanly with the traditional generic concepts. Again as far as I'm aware nobody has provided an adequate resolution to the problem and so differing treatments remain viable and global consensus not currently clear. I do know that recent papers suggest some of the key US proponents of separate genera seem to have accepted a broader concept of Entoloma, but that isn't the basis for the disruption and argument that would result from taxon swaps in these genera. I think the situation is best left unresolved in iNat until somebody publishes a good treatment including epitypifications. In New Zealand we have followed the Europeans, with a few exceptions.
More recent work on the entalomatoid groups does support at least some monophyletic taxa within Entoloma sensu lato and Nolanea is one of them. However, there remain several lineages that cannot be assigned to an existing named taxon, other than Entoloma sensu lato. If Nolanea were accepted as a genus then these remaining lineages would require new generic names and that isn't being considered. Therefore the only acceptable solution is to retain Nolanea, Leptonia etc, all as infra-generic taxa within a broad genus Entoloma.
My opinion would be that for the moment all genera should be lumped into Entoloma. The split seems to be unavoidable but we don't know when this issue will be tackled. At least the new Fungi Europaei vol. 5B still adopts an infrageneric rank for subgenera Cyanula, Leptonia, Nolanea and Trichopilus as mentioned in the summary :
"The first volume covers subgenera Cyanula Leptonia, Nolanea, Trichopilus, and the /Rhombisporum clade, together with around 200 species and about thousand of new photographs and line drawings.
The second volume, which will follow in two years, will contain the remaining subgenera with about the same number of species."
At the moment the classification of Entolomataceae is inconsistent with some taxa having generic rank and others having subgeneric rank. All generic equivalents exist as published subgenera but the opposite is not true. I would advice to merge the genera into the subgenera for the moment until a revision of Entoloma s.l. is done.
Here's a proposition of the lumping:
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes?change_group=Entoloma+s.l.+consistency
All have corresponding subgenera with the exception of Entocybe which only has a valid section rank. As it generally thought to be a basal clade it could have been kept but I heard from Pierre-Arthur Moreau that this was not the case and other clades such as the one of Entoloma pluteiformis/zuccherellii/sclerotiogenum diverged earlier.
Can't subgenus Prunuloides be used instead of nitida?
Are there any publications since the introduction of Entocybe that explicitly (through text or images) lumped it back into Entoloma? If not (I don't know of any), I would wonder if it would be too bold to do so first on iNat.
@pulk There are many who lump it back into Entoloma, especially European studies. I believe the most important one would be the following:
http://dx.doi.org/10.3767/003158513X673521
@cooperj I agree it could be subgenus Prunuloides. Actually I believe the name "subgenus Entoloma" would fit better as the type of the genus (Entoloma sinuatum) is included within the circumscription of this subgenus. Therefore this makes subgen. Prunuloides synonymous with the autonym subgenus. What I meant is that Entocybe would be the same as using section Nitida but would need to be nested in subgen. Entoloma in that case and other sections can be erected for sect. Entoloma (E. sinuatum group), another for Entoloma bloxamii/prunuloides group.
I have now corrected the fact section Nitida wasn't nested under subgenus Entoloma. It should be less confusing.
When the infrageneric classification is validated I will start adding the swaps for the species renaming.
@nschwab Thank you!! My memory failed me - apparently I knew this at one point as it's listed correctly (deprecated by some authors) on agaric.us.
"Therefore this makes subgen. Prunuloides synonymous with the autonym subgenus". A subgenus is typified by a species name. The type species of the subgenus Prunuloides is Entoloma prunuloides. It is unrelated to subgenus Entoloma typified by E. sinuatum.
Clade 10 in this paper ...
doi: 10.3897/mycokeys.61.46446
I have a multi-locus tree I did a couple of years back to indicate placement of NZ tax. 2nd image on this record ...
https://inaturalist.org/observations/131141015
During the first studies it was still included within Entoloma subgen. Entoloma but I see that with more recent ones it's not the case anymore. I will change it.
Note that this is still a draft and a lot of improvements are needed. I start with subgenera and then I'll add sections.
Regarding subgenus Omphaliopsis which is typified with Entoloma leptonipes being a probable (but not confirmed molecularly) synonym of Entoloma incarnatofuscescens I would propose to use it for /Rusticoides clade. It wouldn't fit as a complex if we want to follow iNat guidelines but I think this is the best we can do not to have those species floating as Incertae Sedis.
I have now finished what I consider to be the best subgenera overview I can do with the documents in my possession. I'm open to any feedback.
It looks good to me - appreciate all the work you're putting into this, @nschwab!
Sometimes I graft a taxon to a subgenus based on morphology/subgenus. When it is the case I add a comment when swapping so all is archived here:
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes?change_group=Entoloma+s.l.+consistency
I'm happy to announce that I finally managed to finish the work on the infrageneric classification of the genus Entoloma!
It includes 14 subgenera and 2 unplaced sections. Some are still placed with morphology (essentially in Cyanula) but I hope I'll be able to read the last monography of Fungi Europaei to refine the placement of Cyanula other taxa treated in this book.
If you find any mistake (with such a big work there are probably some!) please let me know so I can correct it.
@nschwab I can't double-check your work, but I have no doubt it's nearly if not totally perfect. Thank you again!
This is another point of contention in the mycological community; I think you could use the evidence to support separate genera or to have subgenera/sections of Entoloma, but there isn't a broad consensus on which it should be. The separate genera view is favored in the US, I think. Is that right, @cooperj? I think there was a flag discussing this elsewhere, but I can't find it at present.