Skip to main content
Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B logoLink to Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B
. 2008 Oct;9(10):779–786. doi: 10.1631/jzus.B0860012

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

Rui-lin Zhao 1, Dennis E Desjardin 2, Kasem Soytong 3,†,, Kevin D Hyde 4,5
PMCID: PMC2565740  PMID: 18837104

Abstract

We present an overview of previous research results on the molecular phylogenetic analyses in Agaricales and its higher ranks (Agaricomycetes/Agaricomycotina/Basidiomycota) along with the most recent treatments of taxonomic systems in these taxa. Establishing phylogenetic hypotheses using DNA sequences, from which an understanding of the natural evolutionary relationships amongst clades may be derived, requires a robust dataset. It has been recognized that single-gene phylogenies may not truly represent organismal phylogenies, but the concordant phylogenetic genealogies from multiple-gene datasets can resolve this problem. The genes commonly used in mushroom phylogenetic research are summarized.

Keywords: Gene, Molecular, Mushrooms, Phylogeny

INTRODUCTION

Wherever we look in nature, we find a uniqueness of life that comprises biodiversity, e.g., in fungi (Ovrebo and Baroni, 2007; Noordeloos et al., 2007; Noordeloos and Hausknecht, 2007; Ortiz-Santana et al., 2007). To determine such uniqueness is the task of taxonomy. Presently, more than 1 million animal species and 500 000 plant and micro-organism species have been described, while the estimates of undescribed species range from 3~10 million or even higher. The amount of diversity is unmistakably immense (Mayr and Ashlock, 1991). In the case of fungi and even the larger basidiomycetes, the numbers of fungi being described are relatively immense (Lechner et al., 2006; Le et al., 2007a; 2007b; Tan et al., 2007).

The application of the terms, taxonomy and systematics, often overlaps, but they have a subtle difference in meaning: “taxonomy is the theory and practice of classifying organisms” (Mayr and Ashlock, 1991), whereas “systematics is the scientific study of the kinds and diversity of organisms and of any and all relationships among them” (Simpson, 1961). More simply, systematics is the science of diversity of organisms and deals with populations, species and higher taxa. It not only provides urgently needed information concerning these levels, but also, and more importantly, cultivates a way of thinking, a way of approaching biology as a whole (Mayr, 1968; 1982).

The major tasks of systematics are to determine by means of comparison what the unique properties of each species and higher taxa are, to determine what properties certain taxa have in common and establish the biological causes of the differences or shared characters, and to determine the variation within taxa (Mayr and Ashlock, 1991). The requirements of systematic study involve species recognition and arrangement of the different taxa into a classification that will show their natural relationships (Kaul, 1997).

Systematics is one of the major subdivisions of biology, and is as broad-based as genetics or molecular biology. It includes not only identification, but also the comparative study of all aspects of organisms as well as their evolutionary history. Based on the advance in DNA sequencing techniques and analytic methods in the last decade, the knowledge of molecular phylogenetics and systematics of fungi has progressed rapidly.

Basidiomycota are characterized by multi-layered cell walls, barrel-shaped structures or pulley wheel occlusions at the septa of hyphae (dolipore septa), an extended dikaryophase, clamp connections that often develop on septa, and the formation of meiosporangia (basidia) that produce meiospores (basidiospores) at the tips of sterigmata (Kendrick, 2000). Almost 30 000 species had been described (Kirk et al., 2001).

Historically, Basidiomycota have been treated as a subphylum Basidiomycotina and comprise 3 classes: Teliomycetes (rust and smut fungi), Hymenomycetes (mostly gilled mushrooms) and Gasteromycetes (puffballs, bird’s nest fungi, earth stars, stinkhorns) in a 5-subphyla classification system (Ainsworth et al., 1973). In the latest edition of Dictionary of the Fungi, Basidiomycota comprise 3 classes: (1) Basidiomycetes (including members of Hymenomycetes and Gasteromycetes), (2) Urediniomycetes, and (3) Ustilaginomycetes, and “hymenomycetes” and “gasteromycetes” taken as informal and not monophyletic categories (Kirk et al., 2001).

With the exception of Urediniomycetes and Ustilaginomycetes that contain important plant pathogens, the basidiomycetes mostly are saprobes and symbionts, and play ecologically important roles, such as oxygen, carbon and nitrogen cycling. Humans have been attracted by mushrooms since ancient times because of their edible or poisonous traits (Garibay-Orijel et al., 2006). Mushrooms are an important group in the biosphere and their significance in diversity and conservation issues has been recognized extensively.

ADVANCE OF PHYLOGENETIC SYSTEMATICS OF BASIDIOMYCOTA AND AGARICOMYCOTINA

Swann and Taylor (1993) conducted pioneering studies on the phylogeny of Basidiomycota by sequencing and analyzing the 18S rRNA gene of 19 species. They increased the number of species to 54 using the same gene (Swann and Taylor, 1995). Both publications revealed 3 major groups: Hymenomycetes, Ustilaginomycetes and Urediniomycetes in Basidiomycota. Subsequent researchers (James et al., 2006; Blackwell et al., 2006) have shown Swann and Taylor’s classification to be remarkably stable, but the term of Hymenomycetes is no longer accepted because it is a homonym of “hymenomycetes” of Fries in 1874, which had been shown to be polyphyletic and should be used only informally.

The “Deep Hypha” project, which continued as the “Assembling the Fungal Tree of Life (AFTOL)” project, aims to establish the phylogeny of the entire fungal kingdom. Several publications, milestones in the classification of fungi, have been published as a result (James et al., 2006; Blackwell et al., 2006; Matheny et al., 2006). All publications consistently revealed similar major clades in the monophyletic fungal kingdom. These discoveries are summarized by Hibbett et al.(2007) as “the higher-level classification of fungi”, which includes a comprehensive phylogenetic classification of the kingdom of fungi. The classification accepts 1 kingdom, 1 subkingdom, 7 phyla, 10 subphyla, 35 classes, 12 subclasses and 129 orders. Ascomycota and Basidiomycota constitute the subkingdom Dikarya, which comprises taxa with dikaryotic hyphae. The formerly named basidiomycetes, urediniomycetes and ustilaginomycetes (Kirk et al., 2001) are accepted as Agaricomycotina, Pucciniomycotina and Ustilaginomycotina, respectively.

The classification of major groups within the Agaricomycotina remains unsettled. It has been divided into Heterobasidiomycetes (jelly fungi) and Homobasidiomycetes (mushroom-forming fungi) based on the structure of the septal pore apparatus and the spindle pole body in GenBank 2006 and Mycota VIIb (Hibbett and Thorn, 2001), while they are called Tremellomycetidae and Agaricomycetidae under the class Basidiomycetes in the last edition of Dictionary of the Fungi (Kirk et al., 2001). In the Homobasidiomycetes, a preliminary phylogenetic outline with 8 major clades was revealed using nuc-ssu and mt-ssu rDNA sequences (Hibbett et al., 1997). These major clades coincided with Polyporoid, Euagarics, Bolete, Russuloid, Thelephoroid, Hymenochaetoid, Cantharelloid and Gomphoid-phalloid clades. This classification was not congruent with Swann and Taylor (1995)’s findings. Recently Homobasidiomycetes was shown to be polyphyletic (Binder et al., 2005; Moncalvo et al., 2006).

Presently, the most accepted classification of Agaricomycotina comprises 5 independent clades that are supported with Bayesian statistics (Hibbett, 2006), and they are recognized as the 5 classes, Agaricomycetes, Tremellomycetes, Dacrymycetes, Wallemiomycetes and Entorrhizomycetes (James et al., 2006; Hibbett et al., 2007; Matheny et al., 2007).

Lack of, or having septa within basidia, the type of basidia division and the basidiospore discharge mechanism were previously considered as important higher-level characters, but this is not reflected by phylogenetic reconstructions. Characters associated with the septal pore apparatus, nuclear division and the spindle pole body are in agreement with current molecular phylogenetic analyses (Celio et al., 2006) based on the structural and biochemical database for AFTOL.

ADVANCE OF PHYLOGENETIC SYSTEMATICS OF AGARICOMYCETES AND AGARICALES

The class Agaricomycetes is divided into 2 subclasses: Agaricomycetidae and Phallomycetidae (Binder et al., 2005; Matheny et al., 2007). Agaricomycetidae comprises 3 orders: Agaricales, Atheliales and Boletales, while Phallomycetidae comprises 13 orders (Matheny et al., 2006; 2007). In many orders, especially those representing larger groups, such as Agaricales, there is still not enough resolution or taxon sampling to develop comprehensive family-level classifications (Hibbett et al., 2007).

Agaricales comprises the so-called mushrooms and toadstools, and is the largest clade of mushroom-forming fungi (Kirk et al., 2001; Singer, 1986). More than 9 000 species in more than 300 genera and 26 families had been described (Kirk et al., 2001). Mostly they are terrestrial, lignicolous and saprobic, and many are mycorrhizal.

An early classification of mushrooms was developed by Fries in 1874. In his classification 12 genera of gilled mushrooms (agarics) were recognized based on macroscopic features of basidiocarps and colors of spore prints (white, pink, brown, purple-brown and black). His system was widely used as it had the advantage that many genera could be identified on field characters. The system was relatively unchallenged until Fayod studied the anatomy and microscopic features of basidiocarps and consequently recognized 108 genera in 1889.

The most influential systematic treatment of the Agaricales is The Agaricales in Modern Taxonomy by Singer (1986; 1962). Singer utilized Fayod’s anatomic characters and Fries’s macroscopic characters in reorganizing families and genera. The term “Agaricales” in his scheme refers to the order containing the type genus Agaricus and the type family Agaricaceae. In his system there were 3 major groups in the order Agaricales s.l.: Agaricales s.str., Boletales, and Russulales. These 3 groups were accepted as the euagaric clades, bolete clade and russuloid clade based on molecular data (Hibbett and Thorn, 2001). Totally 18 families and 230 genera were distinguished in his system (Singer, 1986).

Recent molecular phylogenetic research has revealed that Singer’s Agaricales roughly parallels the euagarics clade (Hibbett et al., 1997; Moncalvo et al., 2000; 2002). However, phylogenetic data have shown that an overemphasis on spore print color, fruit body formation and some anatomical and cytological traits has led to the establishment of many artificial groups, while some cyphelloid, aphyllophoralean and gasteroid fungi should be included. For example, Hibbett et al.(1997) constructed a comprehensive phylogenetic dataset using nuclear and mitochondrial ribosomal DNA sequences of representatives of Agaricales, Aphyllophorales and “gasteromycete” families (i.e., gilled, nongilled and puffballs). The data show that fruitbody form and hymenophore type did not reflect phylogenetic relationships well. Later research has also confirmed this (Hibbett, 2004). Moncalvo et al. (2000) investigated phylogenetic relationships within the order Agaricales with analysis of nuclear large subunit ribosomal DNA sequences. One of their discoveries was to reveal polyphyletic groups, such as in the families Tricholomataceae, Cortinariaceae and Hygrophoraceae and the polyphyletic genera Clitocybe, Omphalina and Marasmius. Another phylogenetic study using a broader sampling in the euagaric clade (Moncalvo et al., 2002) analyzed nuclear large subunit ribosomal DNA sequences to reveal 117 monophyletics clades and at the same time showed that some traditional taxonomic groupings were artificial. Some non-gilled resupinate, cyphelloid and gasteroid taxa were found to be members of the Agaricales (Binder and Bresinsky, 2002; Binder et al., 2005; Bodensteiner et al., 2004; Larsson et al., 2004; Moncalvo et al., 2002; Hallen et al., 2003; Matheny and Bougher, 2006; Peintner et al., 2001). These discoveries indicate that ecological, biochemical, or tropic habits rather than morphological similarities should also be used as diagnostic characters to understand the natural groupings in this order (Moncalvo et al., 2002).

The most recent phylogenetic treatment within Agaricales was conducted by Matheny et al.(2006). In this study the dataset consisted of 146 genera and 238 species utilizing sequences from 6 gene regions: rpb1, rpb-intron2, rpb2, 18S, 25S and 5.8S rRNAs. Bayesian analysis revealed 6 clades labeled the Agaricoid, Tricholomatoid, Marasmioid, Pluteoid, Hygrophoroid and Plicaturopsidoid clades.

The Agaricoid clade (in Euagarics clade) comprised 14 families and tribes of primarily dark-spored agarics and gasteromycetes that clustered together with significant Bayesian support. The same group was also resolved in the maximum parsimony tree but with poor bootstrap support (Matheny et al., 2006). Nidulariaceae and Cystodermateae formed a subclade in the Agaricoid clade, thus the main group comprising 12 families.

RECOGNITION OF SPECIES AND ADVANCE IN STRATEGIES FOR ESTABLISHING PHYLOGENETIC HYPOTHESES

Speciation and recognition of species

Speciation is a process in which genetically cohesive groups diverge into two or more genetically distinct groups of individuals. This process is due to change and accumulation in genetic differences through the natural process of evolution, including mutation, selection and genetic drift. When the differences become sufficient, they are recognized as different species (Petersen and Hughes, 1999). Polyploidy or chromosomal rearrangement is the main way to form genetic differences and different species may arise from different populations in overlapping geographical ranges (Burnett, 2003). Speciation is a process that occurs with time, although there is uncertainty concerning the exact point in this process when a population becomes a species (Petersen and Hughes, 1999).

The species concept based on Darwinian evolution and speciation is known as the Evolutionary Species Concept (ESC), which defines a species as “a single lineage of ancestor-descendent populations which maintains its identity from other such lineages and which has its own evolutionary tendencies and historical fate” (Wiley, 1978). However, this concept is difficult to operate in practice. Mayden (1997) proposed the Morphological Species Concept (MSC), Biological Species Concept (BSC), and Phylogenetic Species Concept (PSC) as secondary to the ESC, which can be used to diagnose or recognize species.

A species based on the MSC assesses overall similarities of morphological characters. MSC is in the most commonly used system for the identification of organisms. The recognition of species by MSC, however, often comprises more than one species (Taylor et al., 2000). In many cases, fruitbody phenotypic differences are subtle and there is disagreement as to whether two groups are different species or just local adaptations within a species. Evidence from fungi shows that genetic isolation precedes reproductive isolation and that morphological differentiation comes last. The rate of nucleotide substitution in fungi, a key factor in phylogenetics, has been shown to be similar to that in bacteria and macroscopic eukaryotes (Kasuga et al., 2002).

The BSC comprises “groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups” (Mayr, 1940). The greatest limitation of BSC is that it is impossible to apply this concept to all fungi as many lack meiospores or often cannot be cultivated to carry out mating tests. Furthermore, there is evidence (Hibbett et al., 1995; Hibbett and Donoghue, 1996) that the criterion of reproduction lumps together groups of fungi that are genetically isolated in nature (e.g., in Lentinula edodes). It has been argued that the BSC overemphasizes potential gene flow between populations, whereas the PSC can recognize as distinct species those groups or populations that are genetically isolated from other groups and, therefore, represent distinct evolutionary units (Harrison, 1998).

The PSC is “the smallest diagnosable cluster of individual organisms within which there is a pattern of ancestry and descent” (Mayr, 1940). PSC requires recognition of monophyletic groups of organisms that share at least one uniquely derived character, and this character is descended from a common ancestor (Taylor et al., 2000; Moncalvo, 2005). In fungi, applying the PSC in research concerning asexual organisms and in the detection of relationships between anamorphic and teleomorphic stages of a single species has an obvious advantage (Moncalvo, 2005).

Different attributes in a species have been regarded as being important, and thus some species have been defined differently. The most pragmatic way to proceed is therefore to continue to work with a morphospecies as the basic taxonomic unit, but to include additional supplementary material as supplied by other studies as a guide to both phylogenetic trends and the interpretation of evolutionary potentialities. 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 Buyck, 2006; Barrasa et al., 2006; Nuytinck et al., 2006) including occasionally with mating type studies (Tan et al., 2007).

Advance in strategies for establishing phylogenetic hypotheses

Statements such as “Phylogenetic methods come to age”, “The use of molecular phylogenies to examine evolutionary questions has become commonplace with automation of DNA sequencing and availability of efficient computer programs to perform phylogenetic analysis” have evocated the use of sequencing in mushroom taxonomy (Huelsenbeck and Rannala, 1997). The goal of phylogenetics is to construct phylogenetic topologies that form assumptions concerning the natural evolutionary relationships of clades. There is an evident need to obtain a robust and accurate phylogeny from the data, and this can be achieved by extending the number of nucleotides sequenced and by choosing the appropriate genes. The use of more nucleotides in phylogenetic analysis has become commonplace (Berbee et al., 2000). It also been recognized that single-gene phylogenies may not truly represent organismal phylogenies, but the concordant phylogenetic genealogies from multi-gene sequences can solve this problem well (Doyle, 1992; Maddison, 1997; Taylor et al., 2000). Furthermore the use of different kinds of genes has been recommended, as the rDNA genes alone could not provide sufficient information to resolve a fungal phylogeny with a satisfactory level of confidence (Bruns et al., 1992; Sugiyama, 1998; Tehler et al., 2000; Berbee et al., 2000; Binder and Hibbett, 2002; Moncalvo et al., 2000; 2002). Multiple genes sequence data from both nuclear and mitochondrial rDNAs have been used in recent papers (Hibbett et al., 1997; Hibbett and Binder, 2002; Binder and Hibbett, 2002; Binder et al., 2005, Hughey et al., 2000; Wang et al., 2004). The use of data from protein-coding genes for a broad inference of fungal systematics has been hindered due to the difficulty in designing robust primers for PCR amplification across a broad range of diverse taxa, and the need to clone heterozygous loci in dikaryotic organisms (Moncalvo, 2005). However, progress has been made, as proposed in AFTOL (http://ocid.nacse.org/research/aftol/). The protein-coding genes frequently used in Basidiomycota are as follows: RPB1, the gene that encodes the largest subunit of RNA polymerase II (Kropp and Matheny, 2004; Matheny et al., 2002; Matheny, 2005); RPB2, the gene that encodes the second largest subunit of RNA polymerase II (Liu et al., 1999; Liu and Hall, 2004; Matheny, 2005; Reeb et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2004; Zhang and Blackwell, 2002); tef1, codes for translation elongation factor 1-α (Baldauf and Palmer, 1993; O′Donnell et al., 2001; Rehner and Buckley, 2005; Matheny et al., 2007); and ATP6, a mitochondrial gene (Kretzer and Bruns, 1999; Robison et al., 2001). In all this, the morphological characters must not be forgotten!

Footnotes

§

Selected Papers of 2008 International Symposium on Fungal Diversity, Oct. 16~19, Hangzhou, China. The symposium is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 30671351)

References

  • 1.Ainsworth GC, Sparrow FK, Sussman AS. A Taxonomic Review with Keys: Basidiomycetes and Lower Fungi. In: Sussman AS, editor. The Fungi, an Advanced Treatise Volume IVB. New York and London: Academic Press; 1973. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Antonin V, Buyck B. Marasmius (Basidiomycota, Marasmiaceae) in Madagascar and the Mascarenes. Fungal Diversity. 2006;23:17–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Baldauf SL, Palmer JD. Animals and fungi are each others closest relatives: congruent evidence from multiple proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1993;90(24):11558–11562. doi: 10.1073/pnas.90.24.11558. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Barrasa JM, Esteve-Raventós F, Dähncke RM. Clitocybula canariensis (Tricholomataceae), a new brown-rot fungus from the Canary Islands (Spain) Fungal Diversity. 2006;22:1–11. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Berbee ML, Carmean DA, Winka K. Ribosomal DNA and resolution of branching order among the Ascomyceta: how many nucleotides are enough? Mol Phyl Evol. 2000;17(3):337–344. doi: 10.1006/mpev.2000.0835. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Binder M, Bresinsky A. Derivation of a polymorphic lineage of Gasteromycetes from boletoid ancestors. Mycologia. 2002;94(1):85–98. doi: 10.2307/3761848. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Binder M, Hibbett DS. Higher-level phylogenetic relationships of homobasidiomycetes (mushroom-forming fungi) inferred from four rDNA regions. Mol Phyl Evol. 2002;22(1):76–90. doi: 10.1006/mpev.2001.1043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Binder M, Hibbett DS, Larsson KH, Larsson E, Langer E, Langer G. The phylogenetic distribution of resupinate forms across the major clades of mushroom-forming fungi (Homobasidiomycetes) Syst Biodiv. 2005;3(2):113–157. doi: 10.1017/S1477200005001623. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Blackwell M, Hibbett DS, Taylor JW, Spatafora JW. Research coordination networks: a phylogeny for kingdom fungi (Deep Hypha) Mycologia. 2006;98(6):829–837. doi: 10.3852/mycologia.98.6.829. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Blanco-Dios JB, Wang Z, Binder M, Hibbett DS. A new Sparassis from Spain described using morphological and molecular data. Mycol Res. 2006;110(10):1227–1231. doi: 10.1016/j.mycres.2006.07.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bodensteiner P, Binder M, Agerer R, Moncalvo JM, Hibbett DS. Phylogenetic diversity of cyphelloid forms in the homobasidiomycetes. Mol Phyl Evol. 2004;33(2):501–515. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2004.06.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bruns TD, Vilgalys R, Barns SM, Gonzalez D, Hibbett DS, Lane DJ, Simon L, Stickel S, Szaro TM, Weisburg WG, et al. Evolutionary relationships within the fungi: analyses of nuclear small subunit rRNA sequences. Mol Phyl Evol. 1992;1(3):231–241. doi: 10.1016/1055-7903(92)90020-H. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bruns TD, Szaro TM, Gardes M, Cullings KW, Pan JJ, Taylor DL, Horton TR, Kretzer A, Garbrlotto M, Li Y. A sequence database for the identification of ectomycorrhizal basidiamycetes by phylogenetic analysis. Mol Ecol. 1998;7(3):257–272. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294X.1998.00337.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Burnett J. Fungal Populations Species. London: Oxford University Press; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Buyck B, Mitchell D, Parrent J. Russula parvovirescens sp. nov., a common but ignored species in the eastern Unoted States. Mycologia. 2006;98(4):612–615. doi: 10.3852/mycologia.98.4.612. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Callac P, Guinberteau J. Morphological and molecular characterization of two novel species of Agaricus section Xanthodermatei . Mycologia. 2005;97(2):416–424. doi: 10.3852/mycologia.97.2.416. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Capelari M, Rosa LH, Lachance MA. Description and affinities of Agaricus martineziensis, a rare species. Fungal Diversity. 2006;21:11–18. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Celio GJ, Padamsee M, Dentinger BTM, Bauer R, McLaughlin DJ. Assembling the fungal tree of life: constructing the structural and biochemical database. Mycologia. 2006;98(6):850–859. doi: 10.3852/mycologia.98.6.850. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Dai YC, Wang Z, Binder M, Hibbett DS. Phylogeney and a new species of Sparassis (Polyporales, Basidiomycota): evidence from mitochondrial atp6, nuclear rDNA and rpb2 genes. Mycologia. 2006;98(4):584–592. doi: 10.3852/mycologia.98.4.584. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Desjardin DE, Wang Z, Binder M, Hibbett DS. Sparassis cystidiosa sp. nov. from Thailand is described using morphological and molecular data. Mycologia. 2004;96(5):1010–1014. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Doyle JJ. Gene trees and species trees: molecular systematics as one-character taxonomy. Syst Bot. 1992;17(1):144–163. doi: 10.2307/2419070. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Garibay-Orijel R, Cifuentes J, Estrada-Torres A, Caballero J. People using macro-fungal diversity in Oaxaca, Mexico. Fungal Diversity. 2006;21:41–67. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hallen HE, Watling R, Adams GC. Taxonomy and taxicity of Conocybe lacteal and related species. Mycol Res. 2003;107(8):969–979. doi: 10.1017/S0953756203008190. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Harrison GR. Linking evolutionary pattern and process. In: Howard DJ, Berlocher SH, editors. Endless Forms. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hibbett DS. Trends in morphological evolution in homobasidiomycetes inferred using maximum likelihood a comparison of binary and multistate approaches. Syst Biol. 2004;53(6):889–903. doi: 10.1080/10635150490522610. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hibbett DS. A phylogenetic overview of the Agaricomycotina. Mycologia. 2006;98(6):917–925. doi: 10.3852/mycologia.98.6.917. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hibbett DS, Donoghue MJ. Implications of phylogenetic studies for conservation of genetic diversity in shiitake mushrooms. Cons Biol. 1996;10(5):1321–1327. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10051321.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hibbett DS, Thorn RG. Basidiomycota: Homobasidiomycetes. In: McLaughlin DJ, McLaughlin EG, Lemke RA, editors. The Mycota, Systematics and Evolution. Vol. 7B. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2001. pp. 121–168. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hibbett DS, Binder M. Evolution of complex fruiting body morphologies in homobasidiomycetes. Proc Roy Soc B Biol Sci. 2002;269(1504):1963–1969. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hibbett DS, Tsuneda A, Fukumasa-Nakai Y, Donoghue MJ. Phylogenetic diversity in shiitake inferred from nuclear ribosomal DNA sequences. Mycologia. 1995;87(5):618–638. doi: 10.2307/3760806. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hibbett DS, Pine EM, Langer E, Langer G, Donoghue MJ. Evolution of gilled mushrooms and puffballs inferred from ribosomal DNA sequences. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1997;94(22):12002–12006. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.22.12002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hibbett DS, Binder M, Bischoff JF, Blackwell M, Cannon PF, Eriksson OE, Huhndorf S, James T, Kirk PM, Lücking R, et al. A higher-level phylogenetic classification of the fungi. Mycol Res. 2007;111(5):509–548. doi: 10.1016/j.mycres.2007.03.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Huelsenbeck JP, Rannala B. Phylogenetic methods come of age: testing hypotheses in an evolutionary context. Science. 1997;276(5310):227–232. doi: 10.1126/science.276.5310.227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Hughey BD, Adams GC, Bruns TD, Hibbett DS. Phylogeny of Calostoma, the gelatinous stalked puffball, based on nuclear and mitochondrial ribosomal DNA sequences. Mycologia. 2000;92(1):94–104. doi: 10.2307/3761453. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.James TY, Kauff F, Schoch C, Matheny PB, Hofstetter V, Cox C, Celio G, Gueidan C, Fraker E, Miadlikowska J, et al. Reconstructing the early evolution of the fungi using a six gene phylogeny. Nature. 2006;443(7113):818–822. doi: 10.1038/nature05110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kasuga T, White TJ, Taylor JW. Estimation of nucleotide substitution rates in eurotiomycetes fungi. Mol Biol Evol. 2002;19:2318–2324. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a004056. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kaul TN. Introduction to Mushroom Science (Systematics) New Hampshire: Science Publishers Inc; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kendrick B. The Fifth Kingdom. 3rd Ed. USA: Focus Publishing; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Kirk PM, Cannon PF, David JC, et al. Dictionary of the Fungi. 9th Ed. London: CAB International; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kretzer AM, Bruns TD. Use of atp6 in fungal phylogenetics: an example from the boletales. Mol Phyl Evol. 1999;13(3):483–492. doi: 10.1006/mpev.1999.0680. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kropp BP, Matheny PB. Basidiospore homoplasy and variation in the lnocybe chelanensis group in North America. Mycologia. 2004;96(2):295–309. doi: 10.2307/3762065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Larsson KH, Larsson E, Köljalg U. High phylogenetic diversity amony corticioid basidiomycetes. Mycol Res. 2004;108(9):983–1002. doi: 10.1017/S0953756204000851. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Le HT, Nuytinck J, Verbeken A, Lumyong S, Desjardin DE. Lactarius in northern Thailand: 1. Lactarius subgenus Piperites . Fungal Diversity. 2007;24:173–224. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Le HT, Stubbe D, Verbeken A, Nuytinck J, Lumyong S, Desjardin DE. Lactarius in northern Thailand: 2. Lactarius subgenus Plinthogali . Fungal Diversity. 2007;27:61–94. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Lechner BE, Wright JE, Popoff E. New taxa and new records of fungi for Argentina from Iguazú National Park, Misiones. Fungal Diversity. 2006;21:131–139. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Liu YJ, Hall BD. Body plan evolution of ascomycetes, as inferred from an RNA polymerase II phylogeny. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004;101(13):4507–4512. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0400938101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Liu YJ, Whelen S, Hall BD. Phylogenetic relationships among ascomycetes: evidence from an RNA polymerase II subunit. Mol Biol Evol. 1999;16:1799–1808. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Maddison WP. Gene trees in species trees. Syst Biol. 1997;46(3):523–536. doi: 10.2307/2413694. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Matheny PB. Improving phylogenetic inference of mushrooms with RBP1 and RBP2 nucleotide sequences Inocybe, Agaricales. Mol Phyl Evol. 2005;35(1):1–20. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2004.11.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Matheny PB, Bougher NL. The new genus Auritella from Africa and Australia (Inocybaceae, Agaricales): molecular systematics, taxonomy and historical biogeography. Mycol Prog. 2006;5(1):2–17. doi: 10.1007/s11557-005-0001-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Matheny PB, Liu YJ, Ammirati JF, Hall BD. Using RPB1 sequences to improve phylogenetic inference among mushrooms (Inocebe, Agaricales) Am J Bot. 2002;89(4):688–698. doi: 10.3732/ajb.89.4.688. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Matheny PB, Curtus JM, Hofstetter V, Aime MC, Moncalvo JM, Ge ZW, Yang ZL, Slot JC, Ammirati JF, Baroni TL, et al. Major clades of Agaricales: a multilocus phylogenetic overview. Mycologia. 2006;98(6):982–995. doi: 10.3852/mycologia.98.6.982. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Matheny PB, Wang Z, Binder M, Curtis JM, Lim YW, Nilsson RH, Hughes KW, Hofstetter V, Ammirati JF, Schoch C, et al. Contributions of rpb2 and tef1 to the phylogeny of mushrooms and allies (Basidiomycota, Fungi) Mol Phyl Evol. 2007;43(2):430–451. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2006.08.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Mayden RL. A Hierarchy of Species Concepts: The DENOUEMENt in the Saga of the Species Problem. In: Claridge MF, Dawah HA, Wilson MP, editors. The Units of Biodiversity. London: Chapman & Hall; 1997. pp. 381–424. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Mayr E. Speciation phenomena in birds. Am Nat. 1940;74(752):249–278. doi: 10.1086/280892. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Mayr E. The role of systematics in biology. Science. 1968;159(3815):595–599. doi: 10.1126/science.159.3815.595. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Mayr E. The Growth of Biological Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1982. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Mayr E, Ashlock PD. Principles of Systematic Zoology. 2nd Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1991. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Miller AN, Huhndorf SM. Using phylogenetic species recognition to delimit species boundaries within Lasiosphaeria . Mycologia. 2004;96(5):1106–1127. doi: 10.2307/3762093. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Minnis AM, Sundberg WJ, Nelsen SF. Pluteus aurantipes sp. nov. from Wisconsin, United States. Mycologia. 2006;98(4):659–661. doi: 10.3852/mycologia.98.4.659. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Moncalvo JM. Molecular Systematics: Major Fungal Phylogenetic Groups and Fungal Species Concepts. In: Xu JP, editor. Evolutionary Genetics of Fungi. Norfolk: Horizon Scientific Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Moncalvo JM, Lutzoni FM, Rehner SA, Johnson J, Vilgalys R. Phylogenetic relationships of Agaric fungi based on nuclear large subunit ribosomal DNA sequences. Syst Biol. 2000;49(2):278–305. doi: 10.1080/10635159950173852. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Moncalvo JM, Vilgalys R, Redhead SA, Johnson JE, James TY, Aime MC, Hofstetter V, Verduin SJW, Larsson E, Baroni TJ, et al. One hundred and seventeen clades of euagarics. Mol Phyl Evol. 2002;23(3):357–400. doi: 10.1016/S1055-7903(02)00027-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Moncalvo JM, Nilsson RH, Koster B, Dunbam SM, Bernaruer T, Matheny PB, Porter TM, Margaritescu S, Weiß M, Garnica S, et al. The cantharelloid clade: dealing with incongruent gene trees and phylogenetic reconstruction methods. Mycologia. 2006;98(6):937–948. doi: 10.3852/mycologia.98.6.937. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Noordeloos ME, Hausknecht A. The genus Entoloma (Basidiomycetes, Agaricales) of the Mascarenes and Seychelles. Fungal Diversity. 2007;27:111–144. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Noordeloos ME, Vrinda KB, Manimohan P. On two remarkable brown-spored agarics from Kerala State, India. Fungal Diversity. 2007;27:145–155. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Nuytinck J, Wang XH, Verbeken A. Descriptions and taxonomy of the Asian representatives of Lactarius sect. Deliciosi Fungal Diversity. 2006;22:171–203. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.O′Donnell K, Lutzoni F, Ward TJ, Benny GL. Evolutionary relationships among mucoralean fungi (Zygomecota): evidence for family polyphyly on a large scale. Mycologia. 2001;93(2):286–296. doi: 10.2307/3761650. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Ortiz-Santana B, Lodge DJ, Baroni TJ, Both EE. Boletes from Belize and the Dominican Republic. Fungal Diversity. 2007;27:247–416. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Ovrebo CL, Baroni TJ. New taxa of Tricholomataceae and Entolomataceae (Agaricales) from Central America. Fungal Diversity. 2007;27:157–170. [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Peintner U, Bougher NL, Castellano MA, Moncalvo JM, Moser MM, Trappe JM, Vilgalys R. Multiple origins of sequestrate fungi related to Cortinatius (Cortinatiaceae) Am J Bot. 2001;88(12):2168–2179. doi: 10.2307/3558378. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Petersen RH, Hughes KW. Species and speciation in mushrooms. BioScience. 1999;49(6):440–452. doi: 10.2307/1313552. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Reeb V, Lutzoni F, Roux C. Contribution of RPB2 to multilocus phylogenetic studies of the euascomycetes (Pezizomycotina, Fungi) with special enphasis on the lichen-forming Acarosporaceae and evolution of pilyspory. Mol Phyl Evol. 2004;32(3):1036–1060. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2004.04.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Rehner SA, Buckley E. A Beauveria phylogeny inferred from nuclear ITS and EF1-α sequences: evidence for cryptic diversification and links to Cordyceps teleomorphs . Mycologia. 2005;97(1):84–98. doi: 10.3852/mycologia.97.1.84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Robison MM, Chiang B, Horgen PA. A phylogeny of the genus Agaricus based on mitochondrial atp6 sequences. Mycologia. 2001;93(1):30–37. doi: 10.2307/3761603. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Simpson GG. Principles of Animal Taxonomy. New York: Columbia University Press; 1961. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Singer R. The Agaricales in Modern Taxonomy. 2th Ed. Weinheim, Germany: J. Cramer; 1962. p. 916. [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Singer R. The Agaricales in Modern Taxonomy. 4th Ed. Koenigsternm, Germany: Koeltz Scientific Books; 1986. p. 981. [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Sugiyama J. Relatedness, phylogeny, and evolution of the fungi. Mycoscience. 1998;39(4):487–511. doi: 10.1007/BF02460912. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Swann EC, Taylor JW. Higher taxa of basidiomycetes: an 18S rRNA gene perspective. Mycologia. 1993;85(6):923–936. doi: 10.2307/3760675. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Swann EC, Taylor JW. Phylogenetic perspective on basidiomycetes systematics: evidence from the 18S rRNA gene. Can J Bot. 1995;73(Suppl. 1):S862–S868. doi: 10.1139/b95-332. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Tan YS, Desjardin DE, Vikineswary S, Abdullah N. New species and mating studies of Marasmius from Malaysia. Fungal Diversity. 2007;25:187–217. [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Taylor JW, Jacobson DJ, Kroken S, Kasuga T, Geiser DM, Hibbett DS, Fisher MC. Phylogenetic species recognition and species concepts in fungi. Fungal Genet Biol. 2000;31(1):21–32. doi: 10.1006/fgbi.2000.1228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Tehler A, Farris JS, Lipscomb DL, Källersjo M. Phylogenetic analyses of the fungi based on large rDNA data sets. Mycologia. 2000;92(3):459–474. doi: 10.2307/3761505. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Wang Z, Binder M, Hibbett DS. A new species of Cudonia based on morphological and molecular data. Mycologia. 2002;94(4):641–650. doi: 10.2307/3761715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Wang Z, Binder M, Dai YC, Hibbett DS. Phylogenetic relationships of Sparassis inferred from nuclear and mitochondrial ribosomal DNA and a protein-coding gene (rpb2) Mycologia. 2004;96(5):1013–1027. doi: 10.2307/3762086. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Wiley EO. The evolutionary species concept reconsidered. Syst Zool. 1978;27(1):17–26. doi: 10.2307/2412809. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Zhang N, Blackwell M. Molecular phylogeny of Melanospora and similar pyrenomycetous fungi. Mycol Res. 2002;106(2):148–155. doi: 10.1017/S0953756201005354. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B are provided here courtesy of Zhejiang University Press

RESOURCES