Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sarahduhon | Subantrodia juniperina |
Synonym of Antrodia juniperina. On that note, should Antrodia junuperina be Brunneoporus juniperinus? |
Sep. 16, 2020 17:03:34 +0000 | jameskm |
Swaps committed. |
Zmitrovich (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ivan_Zmitrovich2/publication/327745896_Conspectus_systematis_Polyporacearum_v_10/links/5ba22d6e299bf13e603c1ad6/Conspectus-systematis-Polyporacearum-v-10.pdf) doesn't have a phylogenetic analysis, and neither did Audet (http://www.indexfungorum.org/Publications/PDF/Mushrooms%20nomenclatural%20novelties%20no.%202.pdf, http://www.indexfungorum.org/Publications/PDF/Mushrooms%20nomenclatural%20novelties%20no.%208.pdf, http://www.indexfungorum.org/Publications/PDF/Mushrooms%20nomenclatural%20novelties%20no.%209.pdf). Audet cites the phylogenies here: https://doi.org/10.3852/13-051, https://doi.org/10.3852/13-039, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11557-016-1193-9, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-016-0364-y, and Grebenc et al.
2008 [International Conference on Biological and Environmental Sciences : 241-248], which I couldn't find). It doesn't look like there is any phylogenetic evidence for the monophyly of Brunneoporus sensu Zmitrovich. Since these species have clearly been shown to be not closely related to Antrodia s. str., I think I would prefer to recognize Brunneoporus sensu Audet, Subantrodia, and Rhizoporia. That is the view taken by https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-019-00435-4 as well; interestingly, Zmitrovich was a coauthor on that one.