Research Article
Research Article
Polypores and genus concepts in Phanerochaetaceae (Polyporales, Basidiomycota)
expand article infoOtto Miettinen, Viacheslav Spirin, Josef Vlasák§, Bernard Rivoire|, Soili Stenroos, David Hibbett
‡ LUOMUS - Finnish Museum of Natural History, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
§ Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, České Budějovice, Czech Republic
| Société Linnéenne, Lyon, France
¶ Clark University, Worcester, United States of America
Open Access


We explored whether DNA-phylogeny-based and morphology-based genus concepts can be reconciled in the basidiomycete family Phanerochaetaceae. Our results show that macromorphology of fruiting bodies and hymenophore construction do not reflect monophyletic groups. However, by integrating micromorphology and re-defining genera, harmonization of DNA phylogeny and morphological genus concepts is possible in most cases. In the case of one genus (Phlebiopsis), our genetic markers could not resolve genus limits satisfactorily and a clear morphological definition could not be identified.

We combine extended species sampling, microscopic studies of fruiting bodies and phylogenetic analyses of ITS, nLSU and rpb1 to revise genus concepts. Three new polypore genera are ascribed to the Phanerochaetaceae: Oxychaete gen. nov. (type Oxyporus cervinogilvus), Phanerina gen. nov. (type Ceriporia mellea), and Riopa (including Ceriporia metamorphosa and Riopa pudens sp. nov.). Phlebiopsis is extended to include Dentocorticium pilatii, further species of Hjortstamia and the monotypic polypore genus Castanoporus. The polypore Ceriporia inflata is combined into Phanerochaete.

The identity of the type species of the genus Riopa, R. davidii, has been misinterpreted in the current literature. The species has been included in Ceriporia as a species of its own or placed in synonymy with Ceriporia camaresiana. The effort to properly define R. davidii forced us to study Ceriporia more widely. In the process we identified five closely related Ceriporia species that belong to the true Ceriporia clade (Irpicaceae). We describe those species here, and introduce the Ceriporia pierii group. We also select a lectotype and an epitype for Riopa metamorphosa and neotypes for Sporotrichum aurantiacum and S. aurantium, the type species of the anamorphic genus Sporotrichum, and recommend that teleomorphic Riopa is conserved against it.

Key words

Systematics, taxonomy, morphology, anamorphic fungi


Fruiting bodies are the most visible and easily studied element of the life cycle of macrofungi. Fruiting body morphology, including overall shape and construction of the spore-producing surface (hymenophore in basidiomycetes), was adopted early on as the guiding principle of fungal classification. This practical, but artificial, system has been largely replaced by a more natural, phylogenetic classification based on molecular characters (Hibbett et al. 2007, McLaughlin and Spatafora 2014, 2015).

At higher levels, there is rampant convergence and parallelism in the evolution of fruiting body and hymenophore types, possibly with a general trend towards evolution of more complex types. For instance, some orders of basidiomycetes only contain simple, effused fruiting bodies (e.g. Atheliales, Corticiales), while others are dominated by more complex forms (e.g. Agaricales, Gloeophyllales). Nevertheless, fruiting body morphology and hymenophore type remain significant for classification of fungi, particularly at very low taxonomic levels (e.g. within genera). The separate research traditions of specialists on morphological groups such as agarics, corticioid fungi and polypores have hindered comparisons of morphologically distinct yet closely related taxa. Otherwise well implemented studies for instance in polypore systematics sometimes neglect closely related corticioid fungi (Li and Cui 2013, Jia et al. 2014, Chen et al. 2015).

A number of studies have shown that hymenophore types classified separately may actually belong to the same genus. Examples include Hyphodontia/Xylodon (Langer 1994, Larsson et al. 2007), Resupinatus (Thorn et al. 2005), Schizophyllum (Nakasone 1996), Sidera (Miettinen and Larsson 2011), Steccherinum (Miettinen et al. 2012), and Trechispora (Larsson 1994, Larsson et al. 2011, Birkebak et al. 2013). In the present study we explore whether phylogenetic genus-level classification and hymenophore type based classification can be united into a coherent system in the family Phanerochaetaceae.

Larsson (2007) suggested the adoption of Phanerochaetaceae for a clade of corticioid fungi around the genus Phanerochaete. A more comprehensive sampling of the Polyporales by Binder et al. (2013) suggests that Phanerochaetaceae is indeed a well-supported subclade of the large phlebioid clade, with the polypore genus Bjerkandera as the sister clade to the rest of the family. The family, as well as others mentioned in this paper, will also be adopted in the forthcoming treatment of Polyporales systematics by Justo et al. (in prep.). Aside from Bjerkandera, all the members of the Phanerochaetaceae identified in previous analyses have been corticioid or hydnoid fungi, most of them simple septate and monomitic, with the exception of Hapalopilus, a polypore genus with clamped hyphae. Here we describe two new polypore genera for the family (Figure 1).

Figure 1. 

Fruiting body diversity in Phanerochaetaceae. a Phlebiopsis castanea (=Castanoporus castaneus), Russia, Spirin 5704 b effused polypore Phanerina mellea, Indonesia, Miettinen 11393 c corticioid Phlebiopsis pilatii, Russia, Spirin 6268 d polypore Riopa metamorphosa intermixed with its anamorphic stage Sporotrichum aurantiacum, Czech Republic, Vlasák 0511/15. Photos taken in the field.

The corticioid members of the Phanerochaetaceae have been popular subjects of phylogenetic research, which has resulted in revision of genus concepts within the family. Greslebin et al. (2004) created the new genus Rhizochaete for pigmented Phanerochaete-like taxa in a separate clade within the Phanerochaetaceae. Wu et al. (2010) produced an extended phylogeny of the Phanerochaetaceae, extending the genera Hjortstamia and Phlebiopsis. The most comprehensive phylogenetic treatment until now, produced by Floudas and Hibbett (2015), resulted in creation of Phaeophlebiopsis for Phlebia-like taxa that are phylogenetically separated from the similar Phlebiopsis species, and moved a species of Hjortstamia to Phlebiopsis. Chikowski et al. (2016) extended the genus Rhizochaete further, including species with inconspicuous, poorly differentiated cystidia.

As a result of these and other (De Koker et al. 2003, Hallenberg et al. 2008) studies, Phanerochaetaceae contained 8–9 genera of corticioid fungi at the onset of this study (Donkia, Hyphodermella, Phaeophlebiopsis, Phanerochaete, Phlebiopsis, Pirex, Rhizochaete, Terana and probably Porostereum). Looking at species numbers, Phanerochaetaceae is heavily dominated by corticioid fruiting body types. The polypore genera Bjerkandera and Hapalopilus are neatly separated from corticioid species.

To better understand the morphological variation and evolution within the Phanerochaetaceae, we have incorporated new species — polypores and corticioid fungi — to the datasets published by earlier authors. With this new data we provide an updated phylogeny of the family, and revise species concepts therein.


DNA and phylogenetics

We produced 36 new nuclear ribosomal DNA internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequences, 20 large subunit (nLSU, 28S) sequences, and 4 RNA Polymerase II Largest Subunit (rpb1) sequences. They have been deposited in the INSDC (Cochrane et al. 2016) under the accession numbers KX752590KX752629. We also used ITS, nLSU and rpb1 sequences of 99 specimens retrieved from the INSDC (Suppl. material 1 – INSDC accession numbers), chosen based mainly on previous studies (Wu et al. 2010, Binder et al. 2013, Floudas and Hibbett 2015, Volobuev et al. 2015).

Various DNA extraction methods were used: standard chloroform extraction (Murray and Thompson 1980), E.Z.N.A. forensic DNA kit (Omega Bio-Tek, Norcross, GA, USA), and DNeasy plant mini kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). PCR primers included ITS1F, ITS5, ITS1, ITS4 and LR22 for the ITS; CTB6, LR0R and LR7 for the partial nLSU (; and RPB1-Af and RPB1-Cr for rpb1 (Matheny et al. 2002). Sequencing primers were the same with the addition of primers LR5 and LR3R for nLSU and RPB1-Int2.2f (Binder et al. 2009) for rpb1.

We compiled three datasets for phylogenetic analyses:

  1. LSU-dataset of the phlebioid clade (Irpicaceae, Meruliaceae, Phanerochaetaceae) based on nuclear ITS and LSU sequences, with 122 specimens. Of these, 100 had ITS and 118 nLSU sequence available. Total alignment length after manually removing unalignable characters was 1799 bp with 474 (26%) parsimony informative characters. The tree was rooted with Phlebia radiata (Meruliaceae).

  2. Rpb1-dataset for Phanerochaetaceae based on rpb1, ITS and nLSU sequences with 34 species, all containing all three genetic markers. Total alignment length after removing unalignable characters was 3064 bp with 672 (22%) parsimony informative characters. The tree was rooted with Bjerkandera adusta.

  3. Hapalopilus dataset with 16 ITS sequences, with a total alignment length 593 bp and 20 (3%) parsimony informative characters. The tree was rooted with H. percoctus (described in this paper).

Sequences were aligned using MAFFT online versions 7.233-7.244 with strategy E-INS-I (, Katoh and Standley 2013) and adjusted manually using PhyDE 0.9971 (Müller et al. 2010). Numbers of informative characters were calculated in MEGA6 (Tamura et al. 2013).

We used MrBayes 3.2 (Ronquist et al. 2012) for inferring Bayesian consensus trees for the three datasets. The LSU and rpb1 datasets were partitioned as follows: ITS1 and ITS2 in one partition, 5.8S and LSU in another, and rpb1 separately. The nucleotide substitution model GTR+I+G was used for all partitions except HapalopilusITS, for which GTR was used. Models were chosen based on AIC scoring produced in jmodeltest (Darriba et al. 2012). Bayesian analyses were run with eight chains in three parallel runs, temp=0.1. LSU dataset was run for 10 (LSU dataset), 2 (rpb1) and 4 (Hapalopilus) million generations sampling every 2000 generations. All runs converged to below 0.01 average standard deviation of split frequencies. A burn-in of 25% was used before computing the consensus tree.

In parallel with the Bayesian analyses, we used RAxML 8.1.3 (Stamatakis 2014) for maximum likelihood inference and bootstrapping, partitioned similarly as in Bayesian analysis but using the GTR+G substitution model for all datasets. The tree with the highest likelihood from 100 individual runs was selected, and bootstrap values were calculated from 1000 repetitions. All the phylogenetic analyses were done at the CSC – IT Center for Science ( multi-core computing environment. The resulting phylograms were pre-edited in FigTree 1.4.2 (Rambaut 2014) and processed further in CorelDRAW X6. Since the Bayesian and maximum likelihood analyses had similar topologies in all well-supported and relevant nodes, we report here only the Bayesian results amended with bootstrap support values from the maximum likelihood analyses. The alignments and phylograms are available in TreeBase (


We used a Leica DMLB microscope with optional phase contrast illumination for microscopic observations. Basic mountant was Cotton Blue (CB, Merck 1275) made in lactic acid, but we also used Melzer’s reagent (IKI), 5% KOH, and Cresyl Blue (CRB, Merck 1280). Sketches were made using a drawing tube with the exception of spores that were drawn with free hand after a real measured spore. The sketches were then imported to CorelDRAW X6 and converted to vector graphics. Spore statistics were produced with R version 3.0.2 (R Core Team 2013).

In microscopic descriptions, the following abbreviations are used: L – mean spore length, W – mean spore width, Q – L/W ratio. Entry CB+ means cyanophily, CB– acyanophily; IKI– means neither amyloid nor dextrinoid reaction. While reporting pore and spore measurements, the whole range is given in parentheses; 90% range excluding 5% extreme values from both ends of variation is given without parentheses; in case the values are identical, parentheses are omitted. For basidial and hyphal width measurements, the 20% tails are in parentheses.


Our phylogenetic analyses support the division of the phlebioid clade into three lineages in line with previous research (Binder et al. 2013, Floudas and Hibbett 2015): Meruliaceae, Irpicaceae (Byssomerulius clade in the sense of Larsson 2007) and Phanerochaetaceae (Figure 2). In the analyses of our LSU dataset (ITS+nLSU), the Phanerochaetaceae receives excellent support (posterior probability=1, bootstrap support=98%) and the Irpicaceae good to moderate support (pp=0.97, bs=59%), while the tree was rooted within the Meruliaceae (Phlebia radiata).

Figure 2. 

Phylogeny of the phlebioid clade of the Polyporales with emphasis on Ceriporia clade and Phanerochaetaceae. Bayesian consensus tree based on ITS and nLSU sequences. Figures denote posterior probabilities (figures between 0 and 1) and bootstrap support values of the maximum likelihood analysis (figures between 50 and 100).

Figure 2. 


The Phanerochaetaceae can further be divided into several clades: Bjerkandera clade (pp=0.71, bs=57%), Phanerochaete clade (pp=1, bs=87%), Donkia clade (pp=1, bs=85%), and Phlebiopsis clade (pp=1, bs=0.98%) (Figure 2). Support values are similar for the rpb1-dataset (ITS+nLSU+rpb1, Figure 3). We report polypores in all of these clades except the Donkia clade.

Figure 3. 

Phanerochaetaceae phylogeny, Bayesian consensus tree based on ITS, nLSU and rpb1 sequences. Figures denote posterior probabilities (figures between 0 and 1) and bootstrap support values of the maximum likelihood analysis (figures between 50 and 100).

The Bjerkandera clade contains three genera: pileate polypores in the genus Bjerkandera, the effused corticioid genus Terana, and Porostereum spp. with smooth hymenophore and caps. All known species in these genera have clamped septa.

The Phanerochaete clade contains numerous corticioid species as well as five species of polypores: Ceriporia inflata, Oxychaete cervinogilva (=Oxyporus cervinogilvus), Phanerina mellea (=Ceriporia mellea), Riopa metamorphosa (=Ceriporia metamorphosa), and Riopa pudens. This clade contains only simple-septate species with one exception (Phanerochaete krikophora nom. prov.), whereas clamped and simple-septate species are intermixed in other parts of the Phanerochaetaceae. To create monophyletic genera, we have two options: a wide, morphologically heterogeneous Phanerochaete that includes a number of different-looking polypores, or three polypore genera in addition to a more homogenous Phanerochaete. We have opted to use three polypore genera: Oxychaete, Phanerina and Riopa. Even after this, a polypore species, Ceriporia inflata with incomplete pores, is nested within Phanerochaete, where it is closely related and microscopically very similar to spiny species. Nevertheless, this arrangements allows us to stick largely with morphologically identifiable genera (Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1.

Morphological comparison of simple septate corticioid genera of the Phanerochaetaceae.

Phanerochaete Phlebiopsis Phaeophlebiopsis Rhizochaete Hyphodermella
number of known species many >10 3 9 6
spore shape cylindrical, ellipsoid cylindrical, ellipsoid cylindrical, ellipsoid cylindrical, ellipsoid ellipsoid
hymenophore smooth, hydnoid, poroid smooth, poroid smooth smooth hydnoid
clamps –* +/–
subhymenium loose, corymb like interwoven interwoven interwoven loose, corymb type
lamprocystidia + + +/–
basal layer / cap context not agglutinated agglutinated/tight agglutinated/tight not agglutinated not agglutinated
colors pale pale to brown pale many bright-colored or brown pale to brown
KOH reaction red or green if present purple if present absent purple if present absent
rhizomorphs many species absent absent always present absent
Table 2.

Morphological comparison of simple-septate polypores of the Phanerochaetaceae with similar genera.

Phlebiopsis Oxychaete Phanerina Riopa Oxyporus Emmia Ceriporia Phanerochaete (core)
number of polypores 1 1 1 2 >10 2 many 1
dry basidiocarp resupinate, thin pileate, light board-like resupinate, rather fragile resupinate, fragile tough resupinate, not particularly fragile resupinate, fragile resupinate, rather fragile
color yellowish brown yellow-brown yellow white-orange white-cream white-cream white-red-purple light-colored
pores shallow, large shallow, large, regular shallow, large shallow, medium to large deep, small to large deep, medium seized small to medium absent/irpicoid
cystidia thick-walled subulate, encrusted thick-walled subulate, encrusted thin-walled subulate, naked tubular thin-walled, naked thin- to thick-walled subulate, encrusted; gloeocystidia cylindrical, thin-walled, encrusted no (cystidioles) thin-walled cylindrical (polypore) to thick-walled subulate, often encrusted
encrustation abundant only in cystidia large crystals large crystals & sticky resin variable, large crystals, cystidia scarce, coarse often abundant, also sticky resin large crystals, sometimes on cystidia
hyphae thick-walled throughout, wide thick-walled throughout, wide thin- to thick-walled, slightly wider in subiculum thin- to slightly thick-walled, narrow narrow, thick-walled narrow, thin-walled often wide and inflated in subiculum, thin- to thick-walled often wide in subiculum, thin- to thick-walled
hyphal consistency rather dense, subiculum may be loose, basal layer agglutinated very loose, hyphae straight trama rather dense, subiculum loose rather loose rather dense rather loose loose subiculum loose, subhymenium often dense
hyphal H-connections no no no no no no yes yes
hymenium subhymenium condensed, basidia mid-sized distinct corymb branching, long basidia dense but still corymb branching corymb branching tight interwoven to looser with inflated cells subhymenium very short-celled, interwoven, basidia long subhymenium very short-celled, interwoven, cells often inflated, basidia short corymb branching
spores mid-sized (5.5×2.8 µm), cylindrical, slightly curved, thin-walled large (7×3 µm), cylindrical, slightly curved, thin-walled large (6.5×3 µm), cylindrical to narrow ellipsoid, walls rather thin but distinct mid-sized (5–5.5×2–2.5 µm), curved cylindrical broad ellipsoid to globose, mid-sized to large, slightly thick-walled narrow ellipsoid, mid-sized (4–6×2.5–3 µm), thin-walled curved cylindrical to ellipsoid, small to mid-sized, thin-walled cylindrical to narrow ellipsoid, mid-sized, thin-walled

Even though somewhat different from Phanerochaete, the polypore species in the Phanerochaete clade have an uncharacteristically simple hyphal structure for a polypore. They have no hyphal pegs or cystidioles. The subhymenial structure is loose, reminding a cymoid corymb in botanical terms (see Figs 79). In contrast, a typical polypore subhymenium is more difficult to study, hyphae are tightly interwoven, less clearly oriented and more irregular. Pores of Phanerochaete clade polypores are shallow and in many species irregular. Basidiocarps are relatively thin. All cystidia are hymenial, and no cystidia of tramal origin typical for many cystidioid polypores (such as Rigidoporus) are present.

The Donkia clade is a sister to the Phanerochaete clade, and contains the genera Donkia, Hyphodermella and Pirex as well as some species ascribed to Phlebia sensu lato. It includes smooth to hydnoid, pileate to effused species, many of which have clamped septa and are also otherwise morphologically quite different from Phanerochaete.

The Phlebiopsis clade contains a wide variety of different fruiting body types: pileate polypores with clamped septa (Hapalopilus), a resupinate polypore with simple septa (Phlebiopsis castanea or Castanoporus castaneus), phlebioid taxa with tight, simple-septate fruiting bodies and encrusted cystidia (Phlebiopsis), and loose rhizomorphic fruiting bodies (Rhizochaete). The internal structure of the clade is poorly resolved in the LSU dataset (Figure 2). The rpb1 dataset (Figure 3) includes too few species to be of much help either at this point. Three clades are well supported — Hapalopilus, Phaeophlebiopsis and Phlebiopsis — but Rhizochaete is poly- or paraphyletic. Further species sampling and genes may help the situation, but in our experience poor resolution of nrDNA markers in Polyporales often persists in expanded datasets.

No intuitively pleasing genus arrangement seems to be in reach for the Phlebiopsis clade. Based on our LSU dataset, the only well supported options for including all species in monophyletic genera would be either one genus for the whole clade (for which Hapalopilus has priority), or 10–13 separate genera, most of them new and monotypic. Neither is a satisfactory solution, and we have therefore taken a pragmatic stand and chosen a strict concept of Hapalopilus as a polypore genus and expanded the genus Phlebiopsis to include Castanoporus, leaving classification for the rest of the clade unresolved.

Thus defined, Hapalopilus is a small genus, currently with four polypore species (Figure 4). The rest of the species currently accepted in Hapalopilus (11 species), with different pigmentation and denser fruiting body consistency (cf. Aurantiporus croceus), do not belong to Phanerochaetaceae but rather to Meruliaceae (Figure 2) and probably also other families. The expanded concept makes Phlebiopsis variable in terms of fruiting body morphology: smooth and effused (Phlebiopsis), poroid effused (Castanoporus), and stereoid, pileate species with smooth hymenophore (Hjortstamia). Microscopically the genus is rather uniform but not distinguishable from Phaeophlebiopsis, so for now we have had to abandon a strictly morphological genus concept for this species group.

Figure 4. 

Relations of Hapalopilus spp. Bayesian consensus tree based on ITS sequences. Figures denote posterior probabilities.

The genus Riopa described by Reid (1969) has been considered a taxonomic synonym of Ceriporia, typified by C. viridans (Irpicaceae, Figure 2). This conclusion arises from an incorrect interpretation of the identity of the type species of the genus, R. davidii, as Ceriporia camaresiana (Ryvarden 1991, Bernicchia 2005). Our study of the type specimen shows that R. davidii is instead a synonym of Ceriporia metamorphosa (=Riopa metamorphosa, Phanerochaetaceae). The species called Ceriporia davidii (=Riopa davidii) by Pieri and Rivoire (1997) turns out to be an undescribed member of the Ceriporia clade in the Irpicaceae. The new species, named here as C. pierii, and four other newly described species form a well-supported group within the Ceriporia clade (Figure 2).

Riopa metamorphosa has been placed previously also in the genus Emmia, typified by Emmia latemarginata (=Rigidoporus latemarginatus) (Zmitrovich et al. 2006). That species is a close relative of Irpex lacteus (Irpicaceae), and thus Riopa and Emmia, though morphologically quite similar, are widely separate phylogenetically (Figure 2, Binder et al. 2013, Zmitrovich and Malysheva 2014).


In our treatment, Phanerochaetaceae contains 14 genera, half of them with poroid species. We expect further sampling to result in more polypores and polypore genera for the family. Even so, corticioid species and genera will likely dominate Phanerochaetaceae.

Our taxonomic revision has managed to retain morphological genus concepts within Phanerochaetaceae, although this has required creation of three new genera for polypores. We show that natural genera (Phanerochaete, Phlebiopsis) contain a wide variety of hymenophore types — poroid, hydnoid and smooth — and can be best defined with a combination of microscopic characters of fruiting bodies. However, in one case (the Phlebiopsis clade, genus Rhizochaete in particular) no morphologically unique, phylogenetically justified genera could be defined, and we have felt the need to adopt an interim, partial classification arrangement.

Our results mirror those of Miettinen et al. (2012), whose similar treatment of Steccherinaceae identified genera (Antrodiella, Metuloidea, Steccherinum) each with variable hymenophore types (poroid, hydnoid or smooth). Like us, they found it generally possible to integrate phylogenetic information and morphological genera, but also identified one clade (Steccherinum), for which no morphologically satisfactory genus arrangement was in reach.

These studies reinforce the view that genera of macrofungi may contain species with widely variable fruiting body morphology. It seems that morphological genus concepts do have a future, but in many cases only when based on a wide set of microscopic characters. Finally, in a small minority of cases, it appears that morphologically unique genera of macrofungi may not be feasible.

Any taxonomist working with DNA sequences has the advantage of comparing their taxa with publically available sequences regardless of morphology of the source. We encourage a broad-minded approach outside traditional morphological conventions in taxonomic studies. When studying genus limits in particular, sampling and taxonomic treatment should be extended to include all the taxa with similar micromorphology and DNA sequences.

What factors gave rise to the diversity of fruiting body types in Phanerochaetaceae? We believe that ecological specialization is the major factor in driving fruiting body evolution within the family. For instance, rhizomorphic species with pellicular, simple fruiting bodies in Phanerochaete and Rhizochaete prefer decaying wood in advanced stages of decomposition and seem to colonize suitable substrates by growing through soil vegetatively. Their closest relatives in Phanerochaete and Phlebiopsis with denser fruiting bodies occur more frequently on recently fallen logs or even still attached branches. Most poroid, hydnoid and stereoid Phanerochaetaceae with relatively complex fruiting bodies produce them in earlier stages of wood decomposition, living trees or drier microclimatic conditions (Bjerkandera, Donkia, Oxychaete, Phlebiopsis castanea, Pirex, Porostereum, Riopa metamorphosa, Terana).

We see here a pattern where simple, ephemeral, rhizomorphic fruiting bodies belong mainly to species growing in soil and very decayed wood, whereas more persistent, complex and denser fruiting bodies tend to belong to species inhabiting living or recently dead trees. Species specialized in colonizing quickly consumed substrates such as rotten pieces of wood in soil are probably better off producing short-lived, simple fruiting bodies. Species using more concentrated and longer-term energy sources, such as recently fallen logs, can invest in more complex or longer-living fruiting bodies. Yet Phanerochaetaceae includes no species with long-lived perennial fruiting bodies, and it might be that the genetic make-up of species in the family sets limits to evolution of fruiting body forms.


Castanoporus Ryvarden

Synopsis Fungorum 5: 121 (1991).

Type species

Castanoporus castaneus (Lloyd) Ryvarden


This monotypic genus contains one conifer-dwelling resupinate polypore species from East Asia. With its simple-septate hyphae, monomitic and dense structure (in basal layer) with thick-walled hyphae, middle-sized spores and subulate, encrusted cystidia the species brings into mind Phlebiopsis under the microscope. For a more detailed description see Nuñez and Ryvarden (2000).

Phylogenetically the species comes close to Phlebiopsis flavidoalba and P. pilatii. Together those three species form a sister clade to core Phlebiopsis, typified by P. gigantea (Figures 2 and 3). For now the most practical solution is to include Castanoporus in Phlebiopsis (see discussion under Phlebiopsis). Hjortstam (1987) listed Castanoporus castaneus under Phlebiopsis in his check-list of corticioid fungi, but made no formal combination. If Phlebiopsis would be defined more strictly, then Castanoporus could be put in use.

The genus Cystidiophorus has been described for Castanoporus castaneus, but for nomenclatural reasons described below we think Castanoporus should prevail against Cystidiophorus. Bondartsev and Ljubarsky (1963) described the monotypic genus Cystidiophorus with the species C. merulioideus as the type. Unfortunately, they did not indicate a type specimen for the species, which makes the species name invalid, and also rendered the genus invalid (Melbourne Code Art. 40; the cut-off year for type indication is 1958). Later, Imazeki (Imazeki and Hongo 1965) made the combination Cystidiophorus castaneus based on Merulius castaneus Lloyd, mentioning C. castaneus and C. merulioideus as synonyms. This combination does not qualify as a validation of Bondartsev and Ljubarsky’s genus name, because Imazeki did not provide reference to the genus description, which is clearly separate from the species description in the original paper (Art. 38.1). In such a case, the genus could be considered valid with the condition that no previously described species is mentioned (Art. 38.5a), but this is not the case as Imazeki mentions Lloyd’s species. Thus, we follow Ryvarden (1991) and regard Castanoporus as the correct name for this genus.

Ginns (1969) lectotypified C. castaneus and gave a description of the type, which agrees well with our concept of the species as well as that of Imazeki’s and Bondartsev’s. Also Maas Geesteranus (1974) studied the lectotype from BPI.

Zmitrovich et al. (2006) combined C. castaneus in Australohydnum. We do not have material of Australohydnum from Australia (the type locality of the type species) or any sequences, but judging from the type of cystidia and hyphal structure we think it is unlikely (but possible) that Australohydnum belongs to Phlebiopsis as delineated here (see Oxychaete for further notes on Australohydnum). If Phlebiopsis were to be split, Castanoporus and Australohydnum would probably both persist being morphologically quite distinct.

Hapalopilus P. Karst.

Revue Mycologique Toulouse 3(9): 18 (1881).

Type species

Hapalopilus nidulans (Fr.) P. Karst. (= H. rutilans (Pers.) Murrill)


Pileate to resupinate polypores with soft to cottony corky, ochre to pink basidiocarps. Hyphal structure monomitic, clamps always present, generative hyphae slightly thick-walled, 2–5.5 µm in diameter, CB−, IKI−, KOH−, covered with granular, golden yellow pigment that dissolves in KOH turning purple. Cystidia absent. Hymenial cells relatively long, 12–25×4.2–5.5 µm. Spores ellipsoid to subcylindrical, thin-walled, 3–5×2–3.2 µm.


Altogether 36 species have been combined to Hapalopilus, most of them bright-colored, soft polypores with a monomitic, clamped hyphal system. The genus type H. nidulans belongs to the Phanerochaetaceae as shown by us (Figure 2) and previous work (Binder et al. 2005, Binder et al. 2013, Floudas and Hibbett 2015). Other species traditionally referred to this genus (H. alborubescens, H. croceus, H. ochraceolateritius etc.) belong to other lineages of the Polyporales (Niemelä et al. 2012, Dvořák et al. 2014), and their phylogeny and taxonomy will be revisited on further occasion.

Here we include four species in Hapalopilus in the strict sense, three of which are new to the genus. According to our data, Hapalopilus rutilans is a holarctic species, H. eupatorii and H. ribicola are found in Europe, and H. percoctus is so far only known from the type locality in Botswana. These species are morphologically very similar, and thus Hapalopilus as a genus is morphologically easy to characterize. The purple KOH reaction of Hapalopilus is shared by its pigmented, corticioid relatives in Rhizochaete (Wu et al. 2010, Chikowski et al. 2016).

Unlike other Phanerochaetaceae polypore genera recognized here, Hapalopilus has a typical polypore subhymenium of sinuous, tightly packed, interwoven hyphae instead of the loose corymb type seen in Oxychaete, Phanerina, Phanerochaete and Riopa. Also Phlebiopsis species (including Castanoporus) have an interwoven subhymenium.

Morphological, ecological and geographic data of Hapalopilus species are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3.

Comparison of Hapalopilus species. Spore statistics of H. rutilans include only European specimens.

Species Distribution Hosts Basidiocarp Pores per mm Tramal hyphae diameter Basidiospores
H. eupatorii temperate Europe dead herbaceous stems, one record on Robinia effused, small-sized 2–4 2.0–3.2(4.2) µm, median=3.0 µm, n=30/1 ellipsoid, (3.3)3.4–4.5(5.2)×(2.2)2.4–3.1(3.2) µm, L=3.96 µm, W=2.75 µm, Q=1.44, n=91/2
H. percoctus Botswana dicot log, savanna/park pileate, projecting several cm 3–4 (2.0)3.0–4.8(5.6) µm, median=4.3 µm, n=21/1 ellipsoid, (3.7)3.8–4.6×(2.7)2.8–3.3 µm, L=4.11 µm, W=2.98 µm, Q=1.38, n=30
H. ribicola North Europe dead, still attached branches of Ribes effused-reflexed or resupinate, pilei poorly developed, projecting up to 0.5 cm 3–4 3.0–4.0(4.3) µm, median=3.7 µm, n=30/2 narrowly ellipsoid to ellipsoid, (3.9)4.0–5.0(5.2)×(2.2)2.3–3.0(3.3) µm, L=4.36 µm, W=2.66 µm, Q=1.64, n=90/3
H. rutilans holarctic twigs and logs of deciduous trees, rarely also conifers sessile or effused reflexed, pilei projecting up to 1–5 cm 3–4 (2.0)3.0–3.7(4.6) µm, median=3.3 µm, n=121/8 cylindrical to narrowly ellipsoid, (3.1)3.2–5.1(5.8)×(1.9)2.0–2.7(3.1) µm, L=4 µm, W=2.3 µm, Q=1.74, n=400/13

Hapalopilus eupatorii (P. Karst.) Spirin & Miettinen, comb. nov.

MycoBank No: 817920
Figures 5b and 6e

Physisporus eupatorii P. Karst., Revue Mycol. 6: 214 (1884). =Ceriporiopsis herbicola Fortey & Ryvarden.


H. eupatorii has completely resupinate, thin basidiocarps on dead herbaceous stems (Arctium, Eupatorium, and Reynoutria). It has been recorded once on thin fallen branches of Robinia in a thicket of Reynoutria. Karsten (1884) described the species from France as Physisporus eupatorii, but it long remained an enigma for mycologists (Lowe 1956, Donk 1974). Recently it was reported from England as Ceriporiopsis herbicola (Fortey and Ryvarden 2007) and Germany as H. nidulans f. resupinata (Dämmrich 2014).

Figure 5. 

Hapalopilus fruiting bodies, a Hapalopilus rutilans, Vlasák Jr. 0407/34-J b Hapalopilus eupatorii, Rivoire 5333.

Figure 6. 

Microscopic characters of Hapalopilus. Hapalopilus percoctus, holotype, a subicular hyphae b tramal hyphae c hymenium and subhymenium d hymenial cells. Spores of e Hapalopilus eupatorii, lectotype f Hapalopilus percoctus, holotype g Hapalopilus ribicola, lectotype h Hapalopilus rutilans, Niemelä 7134.

Hapalopilus percoctus Miettinen, sp. nov.

MycoBank No: 817921
Figure 6


Botswana. Gaborone, Golf course, -24.652°: 25.936°, strip of natural bush, felled log or tree stump (40 cm in diameter), 28 May 2008, Reijo Miettinen (H 7008581).


Percoctus, parched, scorched; refers to the sun-exposed habitat of the species.


Similar to Hapalopilus rutilans with pileate basidiocarps. Microscopically otherwise identical, but H. percoctus has clearly wider spores and tramal hyphae (Table 3). The spore dimensions come close to H. eupatorii, which has larger pores, effused basidiocarps and grows usually on woody herbs. Its tramal hyphae are also narrower. Hapalopilus percoctus is the only species in the genus known to us from the Southern Hemisphere.

Hapalopilus ribicola (P. Karst.) Spirin & Miettinen, comb. nov.

MycoBank No: 817922
Figure 6g

Trametes ribicola P. Karst., Hedwigia 20: 178 (1881).


This species was described by Karsten (1881) based on the sole collection from Finland. It had usually been regarded as a form of H. rutilans (Lowe 1956). However, our data show that specimens growing on Ribes spp. in North Europe are distinct from H. rutilans and phylogenetically closer to H. eupatorii. All specimens of H. ribicola studied by us are from Finland, from branches of both wild and cultivated Ribes spp. The species is evidently widely distributed and just overlooked.

Hapalopilus rutilans (Pers.) Murrill

Figures 5a and 6h

Boletus rutilans Pers., Icones et Descriptiones Fungorum Minus Cognitorum 1: 19, t. 6:3 (1798). =Hapalopilus nidulans (Fr.) P. Karst.


This common species has gone under two names, H. rutilans and H. nidulans. Many authors have chosen to use H. nidulans over H. rutilans, (Bondartsev 1953, Gilbertson and Ryvarden 1986, Bernicchia 2005, Ryvarden and Melo 2014), but also the latter name has been in use (Murrill 1904, Donk 1974, Niemelä 2005). Hapalopilus rutilans is an older name than H. nidulans, and since both were sanctioned by Fries, the former has priority (ICBN Melbourne code art. 15.4).

Neither of the names has been typified. Persoon’s original publication includes a rather uninformative painting of the fungus, probably Hapalopilus rutilans or Inonotussensu lato. The original description of H. nidulans is similarly scanty. No material suitable for lectotypification remains of either species, so we have chosen to designate neotypes for both species to fix the nomenclature: H. rutilans based on a French specimen from oak in accordance to the protologue (Persoon 1798) as Persoon got material mainly from Germany and France, and H. nidulans based on a Finnish specimen, since Fries (1821) based his description on his own collection from neighboring Sweden.

Ryvarden (1991) attempted to designate a lectotype for H. nidulans. We dispute his typification, since he used an illustration in Bulliard’s publication from 1791 as the type, whereas Fries’s original work does not refer to Bulliard. The fact that Fries later (1836-1838) referred to Bulliard doesn’t make the drawing available for lectotypification: only the original material is valid under the code (ICBN Melbourne art. 9.2, 9.12).

Oxychaete Miettinen, gen. nov.

MycoBank No: 811534

Type species

Oxychaete cervinogilva (Jungh.) Miettinen


Constructed from Oxyporus and Phanerochaete, but can be interpreted as “bearing sharp setae”.


Effused-reflexed polypores with yellow-brown colors, light cardboard-like consistency and large, shallow pores. Monomitic, simple-septate, with slightly thick-walled hyphae and abundant subulate, naked, thick-walled cystidia of subhymenial origin. Hymenial branching corymb-like. Spores curved cylindrical, large (6–8×3–3.5 µm).


Other hydnoid and poroid genera with simple-septate hyphae and encrusted, thick-walled cystidia include Australohydnum, Phlebiopsis, Flavodon and Irpex. The latter two are phylogenetically distantly related to Oxychaete, and they possess dimitic hyphal structure quite different from the loose monomitic structure of Oxychaete. Phlebiopsis is phylogenetically distinct from Oxychaete (Figure 2), and its hyphal structure is more compact, even agglutinated (basal layer). Hyphae are also winding and covered with abundant brownish encrustation, which is lacking in Oxychaete. Cystidia are tramal in origin (as opposed to hymenial in Oxychaete). Due to the hyphal structure the basidiocarp is tougher and not board-like when cut as in Oxychaete.

Australohydnum is a more difficult case to decide on since there are no good references on the microscopic characters of the type species, Hydnum griseofuscescens Reichardt from Australia. Descriptions vary so much that it is possible that many species and even genera have been recognized as Australohydnum dregeanum (Berk.) Hjortstam & Ryvarden and its supposed synonyms (Jülich 1978, Hjortstam and Ryvarden 1989, Gilbertson and Adaskaveg 1993, Melo and Hjortstam 2002, Zmitrovich et al. 2006). Sometimes the structure is monomitic, sometimes dimitic; cystidia may be subulate or obtuse; basidiocarps may be resupinate with smooth hymenophore or hydnoid with caps.

Reid (1955, 1963) refers directly to Australian material and the type, and provides an illustration (under Irpex vellereus). His A. griseofuscescens is a pileate, hydnoid species with violaceous brownish basidiocarps, very thick-walled, simple-septate hyphae 4–9 µm in diameter, and abundant long, obtuse, poorly differentiated cystidia with tramal origin and fine apical encrustation. Reid states that the hyphal structure is monomitic, but has also drawn long aseptate hyphae. Spores are ellipsoid, medium-sized. The description and illustrations provided by Melo and Hjortstam (2002) from Portugal are very similar to those of Reid, and agree largely with an Indian specimen we have studied.

Morphology suggests that A. griseofuscescens is not congeneric with Oxychaete cervinogilva, the latter being a polypore with regular pores, much looser hyphal structure without wide-spread encrustation, more regular and less-thick-walled hyphae, different type of cystidia with hymenial origin, differently shaped spores and lighter color of the basidiocarp.

Oxychaete cervinogilva (Jungh.) Miettinen, comb. nov.

MycoBank No: 811535
Figure 7

Polyporus cervinogilvus Jungh., Praemissa in floram cryptogamicam Javae insulae: 45 (1838).


Basidiocarp half-resupinate to pileate, annual, upper surface felt-like, yellowish brown with a lighter margin, lower surface brownish yellow or light ochraceous, 1–2 mm thick, caps projecting up to 3 cm, can fuse to form wide fruiting bodies. Consistency light cardboard-like when dry, somewhat flexible but easy to break apart. Pores regular, thin-walled, mouths rather smooth, (1)2–3 per mm. Cap context and subiculum yellowish brown, homogenous, upper surface not differentiated, up to 1 mm thick. Cap with a sharp, 1 mm wide sterile margin.

Hyphal system monomitic, clamps absent. Hyphae homogenous throughout, mostly thick-walled, always with a wide lumen, rather stiff and straight, CB− to CB(+), IKI−, KOH−, CRB lilac. Encrustation absent except on cystidia. Subicular hyphae interwoven, loosely arranged, (3.2)4–5.4(7.5) µm in diameter, walls up to 1.5 µm thick, mostly ≤1 µm. Contextual hyphae mostly horizontally arranged but not strictly parallel, (3.8)4–5.1(5.5) µm in diameter. Tramal tissue loose and easy to study, hyphae rather straight, parallel in lower trama, subparallel and interwoven towards subiculum, (3)3.5–4.8(6.2) µm in diameter, walls mostly 0.8–1.2 µm thick. Subhymenial hyphae thin- to slightly thick-walled, richly branching mostly like a corymb, not much winding.

Cystidia abundant, hymenial, thick-walled, often with an apical crystal cap, (15)20–40(55)×4.5–9, projecting 5–25 µm above hymenium.

Hymenium dominated by basidioles and cystidia, cells with constrictions especially in older basidiocarps. Basidia cylindrical to narrowly clavate, collapsing upon spore release and difficult to spot, with 4 sterigmata. Cystidioles absent.

Basidiospores cylindrical, curved, thin-walled, smooth, (5.9)6–8.4(8.9)×2.8–3.7(3.8) µm, L=6.93 µm, W=3.17 µm, Q’=(1.8)1.9–2.5(2.6), Q=2.19, CB−, IKI−, plasma stains in CB.

Figure 7. 

Microscopic characters of Oxychaete cervinogilvus, Schigel 5216, a subicular hyphae b tube trama and hymenium c hymenial cells d hymenial cystidia e spores.


Tropical Asia and Australia (Ryvarden and Johansen 1980). Not common in Indonesia although described from there.


Apparently prefers small-diameter dead wood of angiosperms. According to the description, the type was collected in a wet, shady forest in Javanese mountains. Australian collections we have seen are from drier localities (monsoon forest and city park).


Junghuhn (1838) provides a good painting of the species (Tab. IX), available through Google books (

Phanerina Miettinen, gen. nov.

MycoBank No: 811536

Type species

Phanerina mellea (Berk. & Broome) Miettinen.


Basidiocarps resupinate, yellow, fragile, pores shallow and large (1–4 per mm). Hyphal structure monomitic, simple-septate, loose, hyphae not swollen, wider (4–5 µm in diameter) in subiculum, a bit narrower in trama (3–4 µm). Hymenial branching corymb-like, subulate thin-walled cystidia present. Spores rather large (6–7×3 µm), cylindrical to narrowly ellipsoid.


This monotypic genus comes close to Riopa both morphologically and phylogenetically, though the two do not seem to form a monophyletic group (Figure 2). Morphological differences are summarized in Table 2.

Phanerina mellea (Berk. & Broome) Miettinen, comb. nov.

MycoBank No: 811537
Figures 1b and 8

Polyporus melleus Berk. & Broome, J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 14: 53 (1873).


Basidiocarp resupinate, yellow, ranging from yellowish cream to brownish yellow, 1–10×1–5 cm patches, 1(2) mm thick. Consistency fragile when dry. Pores shallow, somewhat irregular, splitting and eventually may turn dentate, 2–4 per mm, larger when split. Subiculum cream-colored, a bit lighter than pore surface, pellicular, cottony under the lens, 0.1–0.3 mm. Margin thinning out, smooth areas of several millimeters similar to tube bottoms may be present.

Hyphal system monomitic, clamps absent. Hyphae cylindrical, not much swollen, branching in sharp angles, rather similar throughout the basidiocarp, CB− to CB(+), IKI−, KOH−, CRB lilac. Large crystal clumps mostly of rhomboidal shape present in trama. Subiculum loose, hyphae interwoven, slightly thick-walled to thick-walled when old, (2)3–5(6.4) µm in diameter, walls mostly <0.5 µm thick, up to 1.2 µm in old basidiocarps. Tramal hyphae subparallel, thin- to slightly thick-walled, (2)3–3.8(4.8) µm in diameter. Subhymenium branching corymb-like, cells not sinuous, relatively easy to study.

Cystidia present but often rare, hymenial, thin-walled, subulate, rarely septate, naked, 40–80×5.8–9.2 µm, projecting 20–50 µm.

Hymenium relatively loose. Basidia clavate, 15–26×5.2–6.8 µm, with 4 wide, spindle-shaped sterigmata, 4–4.8×1.8 µm.

Basidiospores cylindrical to narrowly ellipsoid, usually abundant, with thin but distinct walls, smooth, (5.2)5.8–7.5(7.8)×(2.8)2.9–3.8(4.4) µm, L=6.55 µm, W=3.26 µm, Q’= (1.6)1.8–2.3(2.4), Q=2.01. Spore shape variation is rather large and abnormally broad ellipsoid spores can be present.

Figure 8. 

Microscopic characters of Phanerina mellea. a Subicular hyphae b tube trama c basidia, Miettinen 9134. Hymenial cystidia d Nuñez 503 e Ryvarden 10132. Spores f lectotype g Miettinen 9134 h Nuñez 503.


Described from Sri Lanka. We can confirm it from East Africa (Tanzania, Kenya), Japan (Okinawa), and Indonesia (New Guinea). Sequences of Chinese specimens are also available in the INSDC.


Grows on dead dicot trees, both standing and fallen, often in sun-exposed habitats.


East Asian, East African and New Guinean specimens have neither ITS sequence differences nor morphological differences, so we feel it is safe to assume that the type from Sri Lanka belongs to the same species. Morphologically the type specimen agrees very well with other material. Its spores are a little larger on average than in other specimens studied, but considering the large variability in size and shape of spores this is best interpreted as normal variance within species.

Phanerochaete P. Karst.

Bidrag till Kännedom av Finlands Natur och Folk 48: 426 (1889).

Type species

Phanerochaete alnea (Fr.) P. Karst.

Phanerochaete inflata (B.S. Jia & B.K. Cui) Miettinen, comb. nov.

MycoBank No: 818689

Ceriporia inflata B.S. Jia & B.K. Cui, Mycotaxon 121: 306 (2012).


We have chosen to apply the genus name Phanerochaete for most of the Phanerochaete clade, excluding the three polypore genera Oxychaete, Phanerina and Riopa (Figure 2). Morphologically, species in the Phanerochaete clade share microscopic characters such as simple-septate, relatively simple, loose hyphal structure, mid-sized hymenial cells, mid-sized straight cylindrical to narrow ellipsoid spores, and cystidia of subhymenial origin (Table 1 and 2). However, cystidia are rare and poorly differentiated or absent in three of the polypores (in the genera Phanerina and Riopa), and spores are distinctly curved in two species (Riopa). The third newly introduced polypore genus Oxychaete with its encrusted cystidia and large spores produces pileate and poroid basidiocarps. With the inclusion of these species, the genus Phanerochaete would become difficult to define morphologically.

Ceriporia inflata described by Jia and Cui (2012) belongs to Phanerochaetaceae with P. raduloides as the closest relative (Figure 2). The hymenophore of C. inflata is composed of irregular pores with lacerate mouths, and that of P. raduloides of irregular teeth. Also Ceriporia jianxiensis (no sequence available) described in the same paper as Ceriporia inflata may be closely related. Their identity against P. capitata and P. aculeata along with other species in the P. raduloides group should be checked.

For now we consider Ceriporia inflata a species of Phanerochaete. Splitting the hydnoid-poroid Phanerochaete of this group into a separate genus (possibly Phanerodontia Hjortstam) would make it necessary to split Phanerochaete into many small genera and would place morphologically very similar corticioid species into separate genera. For this reason we strongly prefer a wide concept of Phanerochaete that includes the hydnoid and poroid members, which are microscopically very similar to Phanerochaete sensu typi. See Tables 1 and 2 for characterization of the genus against similar genera in the Phanerochaetaceae.

Hjortstam and Ryvarden (2010) described Phanericium and Phanerodontia for a few species placed traditionally in Phanerochaete. Their Phanerodontia includes four taxa with smooth to hydnoid hymenophores. Phanerodontia is probably a taxonomic synonym of Phanerochaete. Although the type, P. dentata, has not been sequenced, two other members of the genus have (P. chrysosporium and P. magnoliae). They clearly belong to Phanerochaete, and according to the rpb1 dataset to the same subclade within the genus with smooth to poroid members (Figure 3). Phanerodontia dentata does not closely resemble any polypore genus discussed here (except Phanerochaete) with its combination of thin-walled tubular cystidia, long basidia, thick-walled subicular hyphae and ellipsoid spores.

Phanericium is a monotypic genus, and the type P. subquercinum is characterized by hydnoid, effused fruiting bodies, absence of cystidia, hyphae of even width throughout the fruiting body and broad ellipsoid spores. This set of characters does not closely match taxa discussed in detail in this paper, and more detailed study is needed to conclude whether the genus belongs to Phaerochaetaceae.

Phlebiopsis Jülich

Persoonia 10: 137 (1978).

Type species

Phlebiopsis gigantea (Fr.) Jülich.

Phlebiopsis brunneocystidiata (Sheng H. Wu) Miettinen, comb. nov.

MycoBank No: 817923

Phanerochaete brunneocystidiata Sheng H. Wu, Mycotaxon 90: 423 (2004)

Phlebiopsis castanea (Lloyd) Miettinen & Spirin, comb. nov.

MycoBank 817928

Irpex castaneus Lloyd, Mycological Writings 6 (65): 1060 (1920)

Phlebiopsis friesii (Lév.) Spirin & Miettinen, comb. nov.

MycoBank 817924

Thelephora friesii Lév., Systematisches Verzeichnis der im indischen Archipel in den Jahren 1842–1848 gesammelten sowie aus Japan empfangenen Pflanzen (1854)

Phlebiopsis laxa (Sheng H. Wu) Miettinen, comb. nov.

MycoBank 817925

Phanerochaete laxa Sheng H. Wu, Botanical Bulletin of the Academia Sinica (Taipei) 41: 169 (2000)

Phlebiopsis papyrina (Mont.) Miettinen & Spirin, comb. nov.

MycoBank 817926

Stereum papyrinum Mont., Annales des Sciences Naturelles Botanique 17: 125 (1842)

Phlebiopsis pilatii (Parmasto) Spirin & Miettinen, comb. nov.

MycoBank 817927

Laeticorticium pilatii Parmasto, Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia Toimetised 14(2): 228 (1965)


Phlebiopsis is typified by P. gigantea, a phlebioid species with agglutinated lower subiculum, well-developed basal layer/upper subiculum, thick-walled, simple-septate hyphae and thick-walled, conical, encrusted cystidia (lamprocystidia). Our wider concept of Phlebiopsis dilutes this set of characters, but lamprocystidia, interwoven subhymenium and tightly built subiculum remain as important characters for genus delimitation against similar genera of the Phanerochaetaceae (Table 1).

Hjortstamia crassa has been shown to be a close relative of Phlebiopsis, and has been included in that genus (Floudas and Hibbett 2015). We agree with this conclusion. The type species of Hjortstamia (H. friesii) has not been sequenced, but it is very similar to H. crassa. Thus Hjortstamia should for now be considered as a taxonomic synonym of Phlebiopsis. In addition to the above-mentioned Hjortstamia spp., a third similar species, H. papyrina, is combined to Phlebiopsis on morphological grounds.

The two main differences that have been emphasized to separate Hjortstamia from Phlebiopsis are reflexed basidiocarps and the loose subiculum of the former as opposed to the dense, agglutinated subiculum and totally effused basidiocarps of the latter. A closer look reveals that the difference is not as striking as often described. Whereas the genus type of HjortstamiaH. friesii — and its close relative H. papyrina are distinctly pileate, basidiocarps of Hjortstamia crassa are much of the time fully resupinate or caps are small. Hjortstamia crassa also has an agglutinated upper subiculum or basal layer similar to agglutinated Phlebiopsis structures, as depicted by Wu and Chen (1992). Hjortstamia friesii has a tight (though not agglutinated) subicular layer composed of parallel hyphae as well (Hjortstam and Ryvarden 1989, Boidin and Gilles 2002). Subicular/cystidial hyphae of the above-mentioned species are strikingly similar, thick-walled, straight, stiff and sparsely septate.

A loose subiculum or pileate fruiting bodies do not seem to be useful characters separating Hjortstamia from Phlebiopsis, since loose and agglutinated species are widely intermixed phylogenetically within Phlebiopsis sensu lato (Figure 2). Hjortstamia crassa for instance is more closely related to the type species of Phlebiopsis than is Phlebiopsis flavidoalba with a very dense structure and effused fruiting bodies.

Sequences made available by Wu et al. (2010) include Phanerochaete brunneocystidiata and Phanerochaete laxa. The former is based on a paratype and the latter on the holotype. Wu combined the species in Hjortstamia due to sequence similarity to H. crassa. We haven’t seen authentic material, but according to original descriptions, they seem to share basic Phlebiopsis characters except that no agglutinated layer was described (Wu 2000, 2004).

Some Phlebiopsis species may turn out to belong to the Hapalopilus-Rhizochaete subclade instead of the Phlebiopsis subclade. For instance Phlebiopsis roumeguerei is nested within Phaeophlebiopsis as defined by Floudas and Hibbett (2015). More in-depth research is needed to settle genus classification for Rhizochaete and Phaeophlebiopsis-like taxa.

Riopa D. A. Reid

Revue Mycol., Paris 33: 244 (1969).

Type species

Riopa davidii D. A. Reid (=Riopa metamorphosa (Fuckel) Miettinen & Spirin).


White, resupinate polypores with shallow pores, 2–5 per mm. Hyphal structure monomitic, clamps absent. Hyphae thin- to slightly thick-walled, similar throughout the basidiocarp, hyphae not swollen, wider (3–5 µm in diameter) in subiculum, a bit narrower in trama (2.8–3.5 µm). Hymenial branching corymb-like. Thin-walled, poorly differentiated hymenial cystidia and conidia in one species. Spores curved cylindrical, sausage-like, thin-walled, mid-sized (4.5–6.5×2–3 µm).


Reid (1969) described Riopa as a monotypic genus with Riopa davidii D. A. Reid from Corsica as the sole species. Ryvarden (1991) considered R. davidii as a synonym of Ceriporia camaresiana (Bourdot & Galzin) Bondartsev & Singer, in effect making Riopa a synonym of Ceriporia. Pieri and Rivoire (1997) regarded Riopa davidii and Ceriporia camaresiana as separate species, and made the combination Ceriporia davidii. Their concept of the species was mixed, as can be seen already from the spore variation they report. Their specimens from mainland France did seem to represent a species of Ceriporia separate from C. camaresiana, and consequently Ceriporia davidii was adopted by Bernicchia (2005) and Ryvarden and Melo (2014).

We studied the type of Riopa davidii, and it turned out to be a more recent synonym for Ceriporia metamorphosa (Fuckel) Ryvarden & Gilb. After studying the French material of Ceriporia davidii collected by B. Rivoire, we could also conclude that Ceriporia davidii sensu Pieri and Rivoire (1997) needs to be described with a new name (Ceriporia pierii). Ceriporia pierii and also C. camaresiana belong to the Ceriporia clade and are only distantly related to Riopa (Figure 2).

Riopa metamorphosa (Fuckel) Miettinen & Spirin, comb. nov.

MycoBank No: 811538
Figures 1d and 9

Polyporus metamorphosus Fuckel, Jb. Nassau Ver. Naturk. 27–28: 87 (1874) [’1873–74’].


Germany. Oestrich (Nassau): Mittelheimer Vorderwald, rotten trunk of Quercus, “Herbier Fuckel 1894, Herbier Barbey-Boissier”, no. 2008 (S F43290, designated here).


Czech Republic. Moravia: Lanžhot, Ranšpurk virgin forest, rotten trunk of Quercus robur, 5 Oct 1988 Pouzar (PRM871894, designated here, duplicate H 7008579).


Basidiocarp resupinate, white, cream or straw-colored, consistency fragile when dry. Forms patches of a few cm that can fuse to extensive basidiocarps, up to 2(-3) mm thick. Pores rounded angular, soon splitting and then irregular and sinuous, mouths smooth, 2–3(4) per mm, up to 2 mm wide when split. Subiculum very thin, arachnoid to pellicular, white to cream, often lighter than pores. Margin thinning out, usually no sterile margin.

Hyphal system monomitic, simple septate, hyphae rather homogenous throughout. Subicular hyphae interwoven, tissue loose, hyphae thin-walled to slightly thick-walled, (2.8)3.2–4.4(6.4) µm, walls rarely up to 1 µm in diameter. Tramal hyphae thin- to slightly thick-walled, interwoven but mostly vertically arranged, (2.2)2.9–3.5(4.0) µm in diameter. Subhymenium relatively loose, structure uncharacteristically simple for a polypore, composed of branching corymb-like, straight hyphae similar to those in trama. Crystals present as irregular aggregates of rhomboidal plates of various sizes, also fine encrustation present in subiculum. Shiny, hyaline, amorphous droplets floating around in CB.

Cystidia thin-walled, cylindrical, projecting above hymenial layer 5–20 µm, often covered with spores, (15)20–50×4–6.2 µm, born in subhymenium, poorly differentiated, appear as elongated basidioles, rare.

Hymenium loosely arranged, cells thin-walled. Basidia clavate, often projecting slightly above the rest of the hymenium, 15–28(35)×4–5.5(6.2) µm, with 4 sterigmata.

Basidiospores curved cylindrical, thin-walled, (4.2)5–6.6(8.2)×(2)2.2–3.1(3.5) µm, L=5.69 µm, W=2.59 µm, Q=2.19.

Anamorph known as Sporotrichum aurantiacum Link present or absent. Most but not all basidiocarps produce at least conidia in subiculum. When the anamorphic stage is well developed, it appears as an orange mass of conidia similar in shape to Haplotrichum aureum, in conjunction with basidiocarps or separately. Microscopically composed of thick-walled, ellipsoid to constricted conidia (8.2–12.2×5.2–7.8 µm, n=36/3) born singly as apical parts of slightly to clearly thick-walled, partly encrusted hyphae, (3.2)3.6–4.5(7.2) µm in diameter, walls ≤1.5 µm. The conidia and hyphae are yellow, the plasma of the conidia stains in CB, and the walls are CB− to CB(+) and slightly dextrinoid. In KOH the conidia stain pinkish red in masses. Wakefield (1952) proved in the lab that the polypore and conidial stages belong to the same organism.

Figure 9. 

Microscopic characters of Riopa. Riopa metamorphosa, epitype: a subicular hyphae b tube trama and hymenium c anamorph (Sporotrichum aurantiacum) d basidioles and basidia showing the characteristic corymb branching e hymenial cystidia. Spores of f Riopa metamorphosa drawn from the holotype of R. davidii g epitype of R. metamorphosa h holotype of R. pudens.


Temperate Europe: Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Russia (Nizhny Novgorod), France (mainland, Corsica) (Vampola and Pouzar 1996, Pieri and Rivoire 1997). Northernmost records from Southern Norway (Ryvarden and Melo 2014) and Stockholm, Sweden (Romell 1926).


Grows preferably on rotten oak trunks. We have seen it on Eucalyptus and Salix caprea, also reported on Castanea, Juglands and Malus (Bourdot and Galzin 1928, Ryvarden and Gilbertson 1993, Pieri and Rivoire 1997).


Fuckel’s herbarium is in Wiesbaden (WIES), but its material is not available for loan. A duplicate of an original Fuckel specimen in Stockholm is chosen as the lectotype here. It represents an almost completely destroyed anamorphic stage. For practical reasons we also select an epitype from the Czech Republic.

Conidia have been reported from few other members of the Phanerochaetaceae: Phanerochaete chrysosporium (Burdsall and Eslyn 1974) and Hyphodermella rosae (Rahimlou et al. 2015). Riopa metamorphosa conidia are similar to the conidia of these species, particularly Hyphodermella rosae.

Riopa pudens Miettinen, sp. nov.

MycoBank No: 811539
Figure 9h


Indonesia. Riau: Indragiri Hulu, Bukit Aluran Babi, -0.838: 102.226, selectively logged forest slope, piece of a dicot log (15 cm in diameter, decay stage 2–4/5), 1 Jul 2004, Miettinen 8772 (ANDA, isotype H 7008582).


Pudens (adj., L), shy, modest, refers to the scarcity of distinct characters.


Basidiocarp resupinate, annual, cream, young parts white, up to half a meter wide, up to 4 mm thick. Consistency resistant to breaking but not tough. Pores thin-walled, mouths finely dentate, splitting when older, angular, 4–5 mm, 2–3 per mm when split/fused, 0.5–1.2 mm long. Subiculum white, 0.1–0.4 mm thick. Margin thinning out.

Hyphal system monomitic, clamps absent. Hyphae not swollen, rather similar in all parts. Subicular tissue loose, hyphae interwoven, thin- to thick-walled, mostly slightly thick-walled, (2.8)3.4–4.8(6.2) µm in diameter, walls rarely up to 1 µm thick. Tramal hyphae vertical, subparallel to interwoven, only moderately winding, thin-walled or slightly thick-walled, (2.4)2.8–3.2(4.2) µm in diameter. Shiny hyaline resin droplets floating around, fine-grained crystalline-amorphous substance glued on tramal hyphae in CB.

Cystidia not seen.

Hymenium relatively loosely arranged, basidia very thin-walled, collapsing soon, basidioles 10–14×3–4.2 µm.

Basidiospores curved cylindrical, thin-walled, (4.2)4.3–5.6(6.2)×(1.8)1.9–2.2(2.3) µm, L=5.01 µm, W=2.08 µm, Q=2.41.


Southeast Asia. Known from Riau, Sumatra and Fujian, China (the INSDC sequence JX623931, Cui 3238, ‘Ceriporia camaresiana’).


Grows on fairly rotten angiosperm wood. The type comes from low-land rainforest.


The species lacks any distinct characters. Cream-colored basidiocarp with non-inflated hyphae and corymb-subhymenium help to distinguish this species from Ceriporia spp. It is similar to Phanerochaete inflata and Ceriporia jianxiensis, but differs in having long-celled, narrower subicular hyphae (mostly <5 µm in diameter). The relatively small cylindrical curved spores exclude Oxyporus spp. and Emmia spp. Except for the smaller pores and the lack of cystidia and a conidial stage it is very similar to Riopa metamorphosa.

Sporotrichum Link

Magazin der Gesellschaft Naturforschenden Freunde Berlin 3(1): 12 (1809).

Type species

Sporotrichum aureum Link (= Riopa metamorphosa (Fuckel) Miettinen & Spirin)


Hughes (1958) lectotypified the genus with S. aureum. The original description of S. aureum does not permit accurate identification of the fungus in question, and no type seems to exist (Stalpers 1984). Fries (1932) considered S. aureum a synonym of Trichoderma aurantiacum Pers. 1796 (=Sporotrichum aurantiacum (Pers.) Fr). In his monograph of Sporotrichum Stalpers (1984) chose to follow Fries. He also considered S. aureum as an anamorphic stage of Riopa metamorphosa.

To formally settle the names Sporotrichum, S. aureus and S. aurantiacum we need to designate neotypes for the two species in question. In line with Stalper’s interpretation, we designate here the collection Vlasák 0511/15 (H 7008577) as the neotype of S. aureum Link, and collection Spirin 2456 (H 7029505) as the neotype of S. aurantiacum.

This makes Sporotrichum an older name available for Riopa under the ICBN Melbourne code article 59.1. However, adoption of Sporotrichum, traditionally a very heterogeneous set of anamorphs, for a small genus of polypores would only create confusion. Stalpers (1984) described the genus as a “litterbag” of conidiogenous fungi, and accepted only three species. According to him the teleomorphs of those three species are in separate genera (Laetiporus, Phanerochaete and Pycnoporellus/Riopa) that we now know are phylogenetically distinct. Although the type species Riopa produces an anamorph, we have seen no conidia in the other species of the genus (R. pudens). In this situation it is better to coin Riopa, a name without identity problems, for this polypore genus. We suggest conservation of the teleomorphic name Riopa D. A. Reid 1968 over the anamorphic Sporotrichum Link 1809.

Key to genera of Phanerochaetaceae

1 Hyphae always with clamps 2
Hyphae mostly with simple septa 11
2 Hymenophore with regular pores 3
Hymenophore smooth, hydnoid or dentate 4
3 Basidiocarps ochre yellow in color throughout, with abundant granular, golden pigment when under microscope, purple in KOH Hapalopilus
Basidiocarps whitish to grey, no granular pigment Bjerkandera
4 Distinctly hydnoid or dentate hymenophore 5
Smooth hymenophore, more or less 6
5 Basidiocarps pileate, spines regular conical Donkia
Basidiocarps resupinate, spines irregular, dentate Pirex
6 Dendrohyphidia, blue colors Terana
No dendrohyphidia 7
7 Thick-walled, encrusted cystidia present 8
Cystidia absent or thin-walled 10
8 Basidiocarps pileate, encrusted cystidia deep-rooted, brown Porostereum
Basidiocarps resupinate, cystidia more or less hyaline, not deep rooted 9
9 Tissue dense throughout, no rhizomorphs Phlebia unica
Tissue loose, rhizomorphs present Rhizochaete
10 Tissue dense throughout Phlebia spp.
Tissue loose Rhizochaete (incl. Ceraceomyces spp.)
11 Poroid species 12
Smooth or hydnoid species 17
12 Basidiocarps with encrusted, thick-walled subulate cystidia 13
Cystidia thin-walled and naked or lacking 14
13 Hyphal structure loose, basidiocarps pileate Oxychaete
Hyphal structure dense, basidiocarps resupinate Phlebiopsis
14 Basidiocarp with thick-walled conidia and often orange, anamorphic regions Riopa metamorphosa
No conidia attached to basidiocarps, no separate anamorphic stage 15
15 Basidiocarp yellow, tramal tissue relatively dense Phanerina
Basidiocarps whitish to buff, tramal tissue loose 16
16 Subicular hyphae regularly >5 µm in diameter, looking slightly inflated Phanerochaete
Subicular hyphae mostly <5 µm in diameter, cylindrical Riopa pudens
17 Hymenophore hydnoid 18
Hymenophore smooth 19
18 Spines small, their apices composed of heavily encrusted, cystidia-like hyphal endings Hyphodermella
Spines not apically heavily encrusted Phanerochaete
19 Tissue dense at least basally, subhymenium dense with no corymb-type branching, no rhizomorphs, cystidia very thick-walled, heavily encrusted (lamprocystidia) Phlebiopsis or Phaeophlebiopsis
Subicular tissue loose, subhymenium dense or loose corymb-type, rhizomorphs often present, thick-walled encrusted cystidia present or absent 20
20 Subhymenium of the corymb-type, loose, rhizomorphs present or absent, no species with very thick-walled, heavily encrusted cystidia Phanerochaete
Subhymenial hyphae irregularly interwoven, basidiocarps pellicular, rhizomorphs always present, cystidia if present thick-walled, heavily encrusted, conical Rhizochaete (see also Phlebiopsis brunneocystidiata, P. laxa)

Ceriporia pierii–group (Irpicaceae)

Ceriporia pierii and four closely related species described below seem to form a subclade of the large CeriporiaLeptoporus clade (Figure 2). In morphological terms, the C. pierii group encompasses species with pale colored (white, pale pink or pale ochraceous), minutely rhizomorphic basidiocarps (Figure 10), and cylindrical to ellipsoid basidiospores normally exceeding 2 µm in width. In addition, fan-like crystal aggregations occur among hyphae (Figure 11g), and subicular hyphae are considerably wider than tramal and subhymenial ones. The latter feature is not unique for the C. pierii group but is found for instance in the genus type C. viridans and its closest relatives.

Figure 10. 

Fruiting bodies of species in the Ceriporia pierii group. a Ceriporia mpurii, holotype b Ceriporia humilis, holotype c Ceriporia sordescens, holotype. Photos taken in the field.

Figure 11. 

Microscopic characters in the Ceriporia pierii group. Spores of a C. humilis, holotype b C. mpurii, holotype c C. pierii, holotype d C. pierii, Rivoire 2378 e C. sericea, holotype f C. sordescens, holotype g Fan-shaped and rhomboidal crystals characteristic for the C. pierii group in C. mpurii, holotype. Hyphal structures of C. pierii, holotype: h subicular hyphae i tramal hypha j hymenial cells.

The C. viridans group is not very closely related to C. pierii and its sibling species (Figure 2), although morphological differences are very subtle. In the Ceriporia viridans complex the basidiospores are curved and mostly cylindrical, less than 2 µm in width (except C. excelsa), and hyphae possess more or less thickened walls (hyphal walls are thin in the C. pierii group). The C. purpurea and C. spissa species complexes have much brighter, red-colored basidiocarps, cylindrical spores, and hyphae of more or less equal diameter throughout the basidiocarp.

Morphologically species in the C. pierii group are very similar to each other, pore and spore characters being the most useful for identification (Table 4). ITS sequence differences are clear, 3.2–10.6% between species. Below is a general description for species in this group.

Table 4.

Comparison of species in the Ceriporia pierii group.

Species Distribution Color of dry basidiocarps Pores per mm Basidiospores L×W
C. humilis temperate Eurasia white to cream-colored 5–6 narrowly ellipsoid to cylindrical 3.8×2.1 µm
C. mpurii New Guinea cream-colored to pale gray 5–6 ellipsoid to narrowly ellipsoid 3.4×2.2 µm
C. pierii temperate Europe cream-colored to rosy 2–3 ellipsoid to narrowly ellipsoid 4.7×2.8 µm
C. sericea temperate East Asia cream-colored to pale ochraceous 3–5 thick cylindrical 4.3×2.4 µm
C. sordescens temperate Eastern North America yellowish to dirty ochraceous 3–4 ellipsoid to narrowly ellipsoid 3.6×2.2 µm


Basidiocarps annual, resupinate, very thin (below 1 mm), 1–20 cm wide. Sterile margin byssoid, white to cream-colored, producing thin, white rhizomorphs (in all species but not all specimens). Pore surface pale-colored (white-yellow-pale ochraceous), pores shallow, uneven, angular, partly fusing together and even irpicoid, 2–6 per mm. Dissepiments mostly thin, wavy to dentate. Subiculum byssoid, white, very thin (up to 0.1 mm). Hyphal system monomitic, simple-septate. Subicular hyphae thin- to moderately thick-walled, branched at sharp angles, producing abundant H-like connections, always wider than tramal hyphae, 4–14 µm in diameter, with rare clamps. Tramal hyphae parallel, with thin or a bit thickened walls, some with H-connections, 2.6–5.3 µm in diameter. Crystals abundant among or on subicular/tramal hyphae, fan- or star-shaped, up to 20–30 µm in the widest dimension. Resinous, hyaline or yellowish matter present as small droplets among tramal hyphae. Subhymenial hyphae vertically arranged, short-celled, thin-walled, branched at sharp angles, 2.5–4.5 in diameter. Dissepiment edges sterile, consisting of tramal hyphal ends.

Cystidia absent.

Hymenium. Basidia clavate, 4-spored, 8.5–19×3.5–5.5 µm.

Basidiospores thin-walled, hyaline, thick-cylindrical to ellipsoid, about 3–5.5×2–3 µm.

Ecology. All the species produce basidiocarps on rotten, white-rot angiosperm wood.

Ceriporia humilis Spirin & Miettinen, sp. nov.

MycoBank No: 811540
Figures 10b and 11a


Russia. Nizhny Novgorod: Lukoyanov Dist., Sanki, Quercus robur, 14 Jul 2012, Spirin 4706 (H).


Humilis (Lat.), simple, shy; refers to basidiocarps devoid of good characters.


Basidiocarp 0.1–0.2 mm thick. Pore surface white to cream-colored, pores 5–6 per mm. Sterile margin narrow (up to 0.5 mm wide). Subicular hyphae irregularly arranged to subparallel, 4–8.3 µm in diameter. Tramal hyphae 4.1–5.3 µm in diameter. Subhymenial hyphae 3–4.7 µm in diameter. Basidia 9.2–13.3×4.2–5.1 µm. Basidiospores narrowly ellipsoid to cylindrical, ventral side flat, rarely concave, (3.1)3.2–4.2(5.0)×(1.8)1.9–2.2(2.3) µm, L=3.78 µm, W=2.09 µm, Q=1.81.


Ceriporia humilis produces rather large basidiocarps with rhizomorphs at the marginal area or in the substrate. The type specimen was collected from a fallen oak log in Nizhny Novgorod Region, European part of Russia. Another, much older collection derives from Helsinki, Finland (HFR009978, a fallen log of Acer platanoides). One sequence of C. viridans in the INSDC from Shanxi, China belongs to C. humilis (KC182775, Dai 7642) showing that the species is present in East Asia, too. Ceriporia humilis has the narrowest spores in the whole species complex.

Ceriporia mpurii Miettinen & Spirin, sp. nov.

MycoBank No: 811541
Figures 10a and 11b, g


Indonesia. Papua Barat: Saukorem, Minjanbiat, -0.5755°: 133.1447°, low-land primary forest, fallen trunk of Spondias (40 cm in diameter, decay stage 4/5), 3 Nov 2010, Miettinen 14381 (H, ANDA, MKW).


Named after mpur, the people and language spoken around the type locality.


Basidiocarp 0.1–0.2 mm thick, up to 10 cm in the widest dimension. Pore surface cream-colored, in older parts with light gray hues, pores 5–6 per mm. Sterile margin narrow (up to 0.5 mm wide). Subicular hyphae irregularly arranged, 4.8–12.7 µm in diameter. Tramal hyphae 3.2–4.8 µm in diameter, in older parts glued together. Subhymenial hyphae 3–4 µm in diameter. Basidia 8.7–11.2×3.9–5.3 µm. Basidiospores ellipsoid to narrowly ellipsoid, ventral side mostly flat, very rarely slightly convex, (2.7)2.8–3.9(4.2)×2–2.3(2.4) µm, L=3.35 µm, W=2.15 µm, Q=1.55.


Ceriporia mpurii is very similar to C. humilis (see above), differing in slightly darker color of the basidiocarps and a bit rounder spores. Moreover, hyphae in older parts of tubes are densely arranged and glued together, while they are loosely arranged in C. humilis. Ceriporia mpurii is known so far from its type locality in New Guinea.

Ceriporia pierii Rivoire, Miettinen & Spirin, sp. nov.

MycoBank No: 811542
Figure 11


France. Rhône-Alpes: Vernaison, Populus nigra, 24 Sep 1995, Rivoire 1161 (H, LY).


Named after Max Pieri, who with Bernard Rivoire first discovered this species.


Basidiocarp 0.2–1 mm thick, 1–4 cm in the widest dimension. Sterile margin narrow (up to 1 mm wide). Pore surface cream-colored to rosy, in well-developed basidiocarps with apricot tints, pores 2–3(4) per mm, dissepiments mostly entire. Subicular hyphae more or less parallel to substrate, (5)5.1–8.2(9.1) µm in diameter; a few hyphae bearing incomplete clamps or inflated portions. Tramal hyphae 4–5.2 µm in diameter. Subhymenial hyphae 2.9–4 µm in diameter. Basidia 13.8–19.3×4.4–5.2 µm. Basidiospores ellipsoid to rarely cylindrical, ventral side flat or slightly concave, (3.9)4.1–5.4(6.1)×2.4–3.1(3.2) µm, L=4.72 µm, W=2.77 µm, Q=1.70.


Ceriporia pierii is introduced here to encompass C. davidii sensu Pieri and Rivoire (1997). Pieri and Rivoire identified C. camaresiana (Bourdot & Galzin) Bondartsev & Singer as the most similar species to C. pierii, but our data show that the two are not closely related (Figure 2). Basidiospores of C. camaresiana are clearly curved, mostly bean-shaped and longer, 5.26×2.74 µm (Table 5). Moreover, the hyphal structure is different: in C. camaresiana hyphae are mostly long-celled and not inflated, covered with small resinous droplets, and their diameter is approximately the same in all parts of the basidiocarp (3–4 µm in trama and 4–5 µm in subiculum).

Table 5.

Spore measurement statistics of polypores. Bold-face values are composite statistics for species. L = average of spore length, W = average of spore width, Q = L/W, and n = number of spores measured. The whole range is given in parentheses; 90% range excluding 5% extreme values from both ends of variation is given without parentheses; in case the values are identical, parentheses are omitted.

Species Length L Width W Q’ Q n
Ceriporia camaresiana (4.6)4.7–6.2 5.26 2.4–3.0(3.1) 2.74 1.7–2.2(2.4) 1.92 30
Ceriporia humilis (3.1)3.2–4.2(5.0) 3.78 (1.8)1.9–2.2(2.3) 2.09 1.5–2.1(2.3) 1.81 60/2
holotype (3.4)3.5–4.2 3.92 (1.8)1.9–2.2(2.3) 2.05 (1.6)1.7–2.1(2.3) 1.91 30
Kujala HFR009978 (3.1)3.2–4.2(5.0) 3.65 2.0–2.3 2.13 1.5–2.0(2.3) 1.71 30
Ceriporia mpurii (2.7)2.8–3.9(4.2) 3.35 2.0–2.3(2.4) 2.15 (1.3)1.4–1.8 1.55 50
Ceriporia pierii (3.9)4.1–5.4(6.1) 4.72 2.4–3.1(3.2) 2.77 (1.4)1.5–2.0(2.3) 1.70 90/3
holotype (3.9)4.1–5.2(5.3) 4.65 2.6–3.1(3.2) 2.83 (1.4)1.5–1.8(1.9) 1.64 30
Rivoire 1822 4.1–5.2(5.3) 4.56 2.4–3.1(3.2) 2.73 1.5–1.8(1.9) 1.67 30
Rivoire 2378 (4.0)4.2–5.7(6.1) 4.94 2.4–3.1(3.2) 2.74 (1.5)1.6–2.3 1.81 30
Ceriporia sericea (3.8)3.9–4.8(5.2) 4.32 (2.1)2.2–2.7 2.38 (1.5)1.6–2.1 1.82 30
Ceriporia sordescens (3.2)3.3–4.2(4.6) 3.61 (2.0)2.1–2.5(2.6) 2.24 1.4–1.8 1.61 30
Hapalopilus eupatorii (3.3)3.4–4.5(5.2) 3.96 (2.2)2.4–3.1(3.2) 2.75 (1.2)1.3–1.6(1.9) 1.44 91/2
holotype 3.3–4.5(4.8) 4.00 (2.2)2.3–3.1(3.2) 2.80 (1.2)1.3–1.6(1.7) 1.43 60
holotype of Ceriporiopsis herbicola (3.5)3.6–4.5(5.2) 3.89 2.4–2.9 2.65 1.4–1.7(1.9) 1.47 31
Hapalopilus percoctus (3.7)3.8–4.6 4.11 (2.7)2.8–3.3 2.98 1.3–1.5(1.6) 1.38 30
Hapalopilus ribicola (3.9)4.0–5.0(5.2) 4.36 (2.2)2.3–3.0(3.3) 2.66 (1.4)1.5–1.9(2.0) 1.64 90/3
lectotype (4.0)4.1–5.0(5.1) 4.37 2.2–3.0 2.55 1.5–1.9(2.0) 1.71 30
Alanko 145112 4.0–5.1(5.2) 4.43 (2.3)2.4–3.1(3.3) 2.76 (1.4)1.5–1.8(1.9) 1.60 30
Eriksson 1201 (3.9)4.0–4.8(5.0) 4.29 (2.3)2.4–3.0(3.1) 2.67 1.5–1.7 1.61 30
Hapalopilus rutilans (3.1)3.2–5.1(5.8) 4.00 (1.9)2.0–2.7(3.1) 2.30 (1.3)1.5–2.1(2.4) 1.74 400/13
neotype 3.4–4.6(4.9) 4.00 (2.1)2.2–2.6(2.7) 2.37 1.4–1.9(2.0) 1.69 40
Haikonen 19509 (3.4)3.5–4.6(4.8) 4.00 1.9–2.4(2.6) 2.14 (1.6)1.7–2.1(2.2) 1.87 30
Haikonen 26561 3.1–4.2(4.3) 3.59 1.9–2.4(2.5) 2.18 1.4–2.0(2.1) 1.65 30
Kotiranta 18819 (3.4)3.5–4.2(4.3) 3.79 1.9–2.2(2.3) 2.09 1.6–2.1 1.81 30
Miettinen 14427 (3.8)3.9–5.3 4.50 2.0–2.4 2.20 (1.6)1.7–2.4 2.05 30
Miettinen 15793 (3.2)3.3–4.2(4.8) 3.72 1.9–2.3 2.12 1.5–2.2 1.76 30
Niemelä 6749 (3.8)3.9–4.6(5.7) 4.29 2.3–2.7(2.8) 2.52 1.5–1.9(2.2) 1.70 30
Niemelä 7134 (3.1)3.2–4.2(4.3) 3.52 2.0–2.4(2.5) 2.20 1.4–1.8 1.60 30
Niemelä 8896 (3.8)3.9–5.1 4.32 (2.2)2.3–2.8(2.9) 2.50 (1.5)1.6–2.0 1.73 30
Saarenoksa 28283 (4.0)4.1–5.0(5.3) 4.45 (2.2)2.3–2.8 2.47 1.6–2.1 1.80 30
Spirin 5968 3.2–3.9(4.1) 3.49 (2.0)2.1–2.4 2.22 1.4–1.7(1.8) 1.57 30
Oxychaete cervinogilva (5.9)6.0–8.4(8.9) 6.93 2.8–3.7(3.8) 3.17 (1.8)1.9–2.5(2.6) 2.19 60/2
Curnow 3772 (5.9)6.0–8.0 6.66 2.8–3.7 3.07 1.9–2.5(2.6) 2.17 30
Schigel 5216 6.0–8.8(8.9) 7.20 (2.9)3.0–3.8 3.27 (1.8)1.9–2.5(2.6) 2.20 30
Phanerina mellea (5.2)5.8–7.2(7.8) 6.43 2.8–3.7(4.1) 3.19 (1.6)1.8–2.3(2.4) 2.02 100/4
Miettinen 9134 (6.0)6.1–7.2(7.8) 6.48 (2.9)3.0–3.7(3.8) 3.20 1.7–2.3(2.4) 2.03 30
Miettinen 11393 (5.2)5.4–6.9(7.0) 6.20 2.8–3.2 2.98 (1.8)1.9–2.3(2.4) 2.08 30
Nuñez 503 (5.7)5.8–7.5(7.7) 6.49 (2.9)3.0–4.0(4.1) 3.33 (1.6)1.7–2.3(2.4) 1.95 30
Ryvarden 10519B 5.9–7.4 6.81 3.2–3.7 3.38 1.8–2.2 2.01 10
Riopa metamorphosa (4.2)5.0–6.6(8.2) 5.69 (2.0)2.2–3.1(3.5) 2.59 (1.7)1.9–2.6(2.8) 2.19 168/4
epitype 5.2–6.6(6.8) 5.84 (2.1)2.3–3.0(3.1) 2.59 1.9–2.7 2.25 50
holotype of Ceriporia davidii 4.9–6.2(6.3) 5.51 2.3–3.0 2.68 1.9–2.3 2.05 30
Spirin 2395 5.0–7.6(8.2) 5.82 (2.0)2.1–3.3(3.5) 2.55 (1.8)1.9–2.7(2.8) 2.29 58
Spirin 2686 (4.2)4.6–6.2(6.5) 5.35 2.3–2.9(3.1) 2.59 (1.7)1.8–2.3(2.4) 2.07 30
Riopa pudens (4.2)4.3–5.6(6.2) 5.01 (1.8)1.9–2.2(2.3) 2.08 2.1–2.7(2.8) 2.41 40

Ceriporia sericea Spirin & Vlasák, sp. nov.

MycoBank No: 811543
Figure 11e


Russia. Khabarovsk: Khabarovsk Dist., Malyi Niran, Tilia amurensis, 6 Aug 2012, Spirin 4944 (H).


Sericeus (Lat.), silky, refers to the soft consistency of basidiocarp


Basidiocarps 0.3–0.5 mm thick, up to 4 cm in the widest dimension. Margin narrow (up to 1 mm wide). Pore surface cream-colored to pale ochraceous, pores 3–5 per mm. Subicular hyphae subparallel, 4.4–9.4 µm in diameter, some inflated. Tramal hyphae 3.2–4.8 µm in diameter. Subhymenial hyphae 2.9–3.7 µm in diameter. Basidia 10.4–13.8×3.4–5 µm. Basidiospores thin-walled, hyaline, thick cylindrical, ventral side concave (bean-shaped), (3.8)3.9–4.8(5.2)×(2.1)2.2–2.7 µm, L=4.32 µm, W=2.38 µm, Q=1.82.


Ceriporia sericea is characterized by soft, pale-colored, rhizomorphic basidiocarps and medium-sized, bean-shaped spores.

Ceriporia sordescens Miettinen & Spirin, sp. nov.

MycoBank No: 811544
Figures 10c and 11f


United States. New York: Essex Co., Huntington Wildlife Forest, Arbutus Lake, 43.9856° : -74.2469°, fallen dicot trunk (Acer saccharum?, 50 cm in diameter, decay stage 3/5), 18 Aug 2012, Miettinen 15492.2 (H).


Sordescens (Lat.), becoming dirty-colored, refers to color change upon drying.


Basidiocarps 0.2–0.5 mm thick, up to 20 cm in the widest dimension. Sterile margin up to 3 mm wide. Pore surface yellowish, in dry specimens pale to dirty ochraceous, in a few portions with pinkish hues, pores 3–4 per mm. Subicular hyphae subparallel, 5–13.6 µm in diameter, some inflated. Tramal hyphae 2.6–4 µm in diameter. Subhymenial hyphae 2.5–4.6 µm in diameter. Basidia 10.1–18.4×4.1–5.2 µm. Basidiospores ellipsoid to narrowly ellipsoid, ventral side flat or slightly convex, very rarely slightly concave, (3.2)3.3–4.2(4.6)×(2.0)2.1–2.5(2.6) µm, L=3.61 µm, W=2.24 µm, Q=1.61.


Ceriporia sordescens is a close relative of C. pierii differing by its ochraceous colors and smaller spores. We have studied one morphologically very similar specimen to C. sordescens from Ontario, Canada identified (incorrectly in our view) as Poria griseoalba by R.F. Cain (H ex TRTC 33465). It may represent yet another species in the C. pierii group, differing from C. sordescens mainly by its smaller pores 4–5 per mm, and longer, thick cylindrical spores 4.2–5.1×2–2.3 µm (n=30), L=4.54, W=2.15, Q=2.12. Poria griseoalba (Peck) Saccardo was described from Osceola, New York (Peck 1885) as having small-pored, grayish white basidiocarps, and Lowe (1966) placed it among the synonyms of Poria rhodella Fr. (= Ceriporia viridans s. lato). Even if Lowe’s species concept was probably wider than today, Poria griseoalba belongs in the vicinity of C. viridans and is clearly not conspecific with C. sordescens.

Specimens examined

We studied specimens from herbaria H, O, K and LY, as well as specimens from the personal herbarium of Josef Vlasák (JV). Type specimens of species described here are omitted since their specimen information is found in the descriptions. Sequenced specimens are marked with an asterisk (*).

Australohydnum dregeanum. India. Madhya Pradesh: Dhuma, Boswellia serrata, 6 Sep 1990, March & Tiwari IDF 223 (O, H).

Ceriporia camaresiana. France. Bouches-du-Rhône: Eygalières, Viburnum tinus, 26 Oct 1995, Rivoire 1233 (H*, LY).

Ceriporia humilis. Finland. Uusimaa: Helsinki, Laajasalo, Acer platanoides, 20 Oct 1963, Kujala (H, HFR9978).

Ceriporia pierii. France. Rhône-Alpes: Vernaison, Populus nigra, 14 Oct 2000, Rivoire 1822 (H, LY); Orlienas, hardwood, 18 Apr 2004, Rivoire 2378 (H, LY), dead Funalia gallica on Fraxinus excelsior, 3 Jan 2007, Rivoire 3052 (H, LY).

Ceriporia viridans. Netherlands. Noord-Holland: Amsterdam, Sloterdijk, dicot, 23 Jun 2007, Miettinen 11701 (H*).

Emmia latemarginata. Poland. Małopolska: Tarnów, Krzyskie Forest, Quercus robur, 4 Sep 1997, Piątek (H*).

Hapalopilus eupatorii. France. Seine-Maritime: Petit-Couronne, Eupatorium cannabinum, 1882 Letendre 19 (H 7008580, Karsten’s herbarium 5927, lectotype of Physisporus eupatorii selected by Lowe 1956). Rhône: Vourles, Robinia pseudoacacia in Renynoutria japonica thicket, 3 Mar 2014, Rivoire 5333 (LY*). Germany. Nordrhein-Westfalen: Mönchengladbach, Volksgarten, Reynoutria japonica 04 Nov 2013, Bender (LY BR-5305*). United Kingdom. Oxfordshire: Henley on Thames, Arctium sp., 10 Dec 2006, Fortey (holotype of Ceriporiopsis herbicola in K, isotype in O* studied).

Hapalopilus rutilans. Croatia. Zagreb: Maksimir, Quercus, 21 Sep 1979, Tortič (H). Finland. Ahvenanmaa: Lemland, Nåtö, deciduous tree, V.1996 Kinnunen (H). Uusimaa: Helsinki, Käpylä, Sorbus aucuparia, 23 Sep 2001, Kotiranta 18819 (H), Veräjämäki, Betula, 17 Jan 2011, Miettinen 14427 (H*); Inkoo, Fagervik, Corylus avellana, 3 Sep 1983, Saarenoksa 28283 (H); Kirkkonummi, Sundsberg, Betula, 20 Oct 2012, Miettinen 15793 (H*). Kittilän Lappi: Kittilä, Kolvakero, Betula pubescens, 22 Sep 2001, Niemelä 7134* (H 7008578*, neotype for Polyporus nidulans designated here). Russia. Buryatia: Baikal, Svyatoi Peninsula, Betula platyphylla, 25 Aug 2000, Kotiranta 17180 (H). Khabarovsk Reg.: Khabarovsk Dist., Malyi Niran, Tilia amurensis, 6 Aug 2012, Spirin 4967 (H), Bolshoi Khekhtsir Nat. Res., Abies nephrolepis, 2 Sep 2013, Spirin 6516 (H*); Solnechnyi Dist., Suluk-Makit, A. nephrolepis, 17 Aug 2011, Spirin 4168 (H). Primorie Reg.: Krasnoarmeiskii Dist., Mel’nichnoe, A. nephrolepis, 23 Aug 2013, Spirin 6299 (H). Nizhny Novgorod Reg.: Bogorodsk Dist., Chudinovo, Tilia cordata, 4 Aug 2013, Spirin 5968 (H*). France. Rhône: Rontalon, Bois des rivoires, N45.64575:E4.61808, alt. 622 m, Quercus petraea, 15 Aug 2008, Rivoire 3429 (LY*, neotype of Boletus rutilans designated here). Sweden. Uppland: Stockholm, Betula, 11 Jun 2002, Vlasák 0206/2* (JV). Vlasák Switzerland. Glarus: Filzbach, Corylus avellana, 21 Apr 1999, Haikonen 19509 (H); Obstalden, Fagus sylvatica, 20 Sep 2008, Haikonen 26561 (H). United States. Pennsylvania: Hatfield, Pinus, 31 Jul 2004, Vlasák Jr. 0407/34-J (JV*).

Hapalopilus ribicola. Finland. Uusimaa: Helsinki, Viikki, Ribes nigrum, 25 May 2010, Alanko 145112 (H*). Etelä-Häme: Tammela, Mustiala, Ribes sp., 10 Oct 1881, Karsten (H 6016987, Karsten’s herbarium 3795, lectotype of Trametes ribicola selected by (Lowe 1956)); Kangasala, Suinula, Ribes spicatum, 30 May 2003, Eriksson 1201 (H*); Lahti, Mukkulankatu, Ribes alpinum, 31 Dec 1989, Haikonen 11175 (H).

Irpex lacteus. Finland. Etelä-Häme: Lammi, Biological Station, Laburnum alpinum, 23 Sep 2004, Niemelä 7932 (H*).

Oxychaete cervinogilva. Australia. Queensland: Cape Tribulation NP, 4 Dec 1990, Curnow 3772 (H, ex CBG). Cairns, 22 Aug 2006, Schigel 5216 (H*). India. Tamil Nadu: Salem, Kolli Hills, 17 Dec 1978, Kolandavelu (H, O). Indonesia. Java. Junghuhn (L6053180, lectotype by Ryvarden (Ryvarden 1981)).

Phanerina mellea. Indonesia. Papua: Jayapura reg., Sentani, Mt Cycloop foothills, secondary forest, Mimosoidae? log, 26 Aug 2004, Miettinen 9134.2 (H*, ANDA, MAN); Abepura, roadside, standing Cassia, 26 Jan 2007, Miettinen 11393 (H*). Japan. Okinawa: Iriomote island, Nakama river, 22 Jun 1994, Nuñez 503 (O, H). Kenya. Coast Prov: Kwale dist., Diani Beach Forest, alt. 10 m, 15 Feb 1973, Ryvarden 10519B (O, H). SRI LANKA. CENTRAL PROVINCE: Feb 1869, no. 535 (K(M) 203382, lectotype by Ryvarden 1984). Tanzania. Arusha Prov: Arusha NP, Meru E slope rd to crater, 8 Feb 1973, Ryvarden 10132 (O, H*).

Phanerochaete raduloides. Finland. Pohjois-Karjala: Ilomantsi, Betula pubescens, 6 Sep 2003, Penttilä 14355 (H*).

Phlebiopsis castanea. Russia. Khabarovsk: Ulika, Pinus koraiensis, 15 Aug 2012, Spirin 5295 (H*). Povorotnaya, Pinus koraiensis, 27 Aug 2012, Spirin 5704 (H).

Phlebiopsis crassa. Japan. Ibraki: Kasama, 5 Nov 1991, Ryvarden 30366 (O, H). Nepal. Gandaki: Pokhara, 27 Oct 1979, Ryvarden 18502 (O, H).

Phlebiopsis friesii. Indonesia. Sulawesi Utara: Dumoga-Bone NP, 6–8 Oct 1985, Samuels 2068 (O, H).

Phlebiopsis flavidoalba. United States. Florida: Gainesville, 24 Nov 2013, Miettinen 17896 (H*).

Phlebiopsis gigantea. Finland. Uusimaa: Helsinki, 5 May 2012, Miettinen 15354 (H 6012967*). Kainuu: Puolanka, 25 Sep 2010, Miettinen 14181 (H).

Phlebiopsis papyrina. United States. Florida: Sarasota, 10 Mar 2016, Dollinger 677 (H).

Phlebiopsis pilatii. Russia. Khabarovsk: Khabarovsk Dist., Malyi Niran, Tilia amurensis, 8 Aug 2012, Spirin 5048 (H*). Primorie: Krasnoarmeiskii Dist., Melnichnoe, Fraxinus mandshurica, 22 Aug 2013, Spirin 6268 (H).

Riopa metamorphosa. Czech Republic. Moravia: Lanžhot, Ranšpurk virgin forest, Quercus robur, 19 Nov 2005,, Vlasák 0511/15 (H 7008577, neotype of Sporotrichum aureum, JV*), 5 Oct 1988, Pouzar (PRM871894 epitype, H 7008579). France. Corsica: Porto, burnt Eucalyptus log, 8 Jun 1965, Reid (K(M) 180465, holotype of Riopa davidii). Germany. Oestrich (Nassau), ex Herbarium Sydow (S F43291). Russia. Nizhny Novgorod: Bogorodsk dist., Krastelikha, Quercus robur, 11 Aug 2006, Spirin 2456 (H 7029505, neotype of Sporotrichum aurantiacum). Lukoyanov Dist., Razino, dry standing Salix caprea tree, 17 Aug 2006, Spirin 2595 (H), Sanki, Q. robur stump, 10 Aug 2005, Spirin 2395 (H*), fallen trunk of Q. robur, 18 Aug 2006, Spirin 2609 (H), 19 Aug 2006, Spirin 2625 (H), Q. robur stump, 11 Aug 2007, Spirin 2686 (H).


We thank Dmitry Schigel (Copenhagen) for providing important material and Leif Ryvarden (Oslo) for sharing his notes on type specimens. Alexander Sennikov (Helsinki) advised us on nomenclature. Karl-Henrik Larsson (Oslo) kindly provided us sequences for this study. A number of the ITS sequences were produced under the Finnish Barcode of Life initiative (FinBOL). CSC – IT Center for Science (Espoo, Finland) provided computational resources. This research was made possible by the National Science Foundation grant DEB0933081 and the European Commission Marie Curie grant PIOF-GA-2011–302349.


  • Bernicchia A (2005) Polyporaceae s.l. Candusso, Alassio, 808 pp.
  • Binder M, Hibbett DS, Larsson K-H, Larsson E, Langer E, Langer G (2005) The phylogenetic distribution of resupinate forms across the major clades of mushroom-forming fungi (Homobasidiomycetes). Systematics and Biodiversity 3: 113–157. doi: 10.1017/s1477200005001623
  • Binder M, Justo A, Riley R, Salamov A, Lopez-Giraldez F, Sjökvist E, Copeland A, Foster B, Sun H, Larsson E, Larsson K-H, Townsend J, Grigoriev IV, Hibbett DS (2013) Phylogenetic and phylogenomic overview of the Polyporales. Mycologia 105: 1350–1373. doi: 10.3852/13-003
  • Binder M, Larsson KH, Matheny PB, Hibbett DS (2009) Amylocorticiales ord. nov. and Jaapiales ord. nov.: Early diverging clades of Agaricomycetidae dominated by corticioid forms. Mycologia 102: 865–880. doi: 10.3852/09-288
  • Birkebak JM, Mayor JR, Ryberg KM, Matheny PB (2013) A systematic, morphological and ecological overview of the Clavariaceae (Agaricales). Mycologia 105: 896–911. doi: 10.3852/12-070
  • Boidin J, Gilles G (2002) À propos du genre Lopharia sensu lato (Basidiomycètes, Aphyllophorales). Bulletin de la Societe Mycologique de France 118: 91–115.
  • Bondartsev AS (1953) Trutovye griby evropeiskoi chasti SSSR i Kavkaza. Academy of the Sciences of the USSR, Moscow-Leningrad.
  • Bondartsev AS, Ljubarsky LV (1963) Novyi rod i novye vidy Polyporaceae, obnaruzhennye na Dal’nem Vostoke. Botanicheskie Materialy Otdela Sporovyh Rastenii Botanicheskogo INstituta imeni V L Komarova Akademii Nauk SSSR 16: 125–133.
  • Bourdot H, Galzin A (1928 [‘1927’]) Hyménomycètes de France. Marcel Bry, Sceaux, 761 pp.
  • Burdsall HH, Eslyn EW (1974) A new Phanerochaete with a Chrysosporium imperfect state. Mycotaxon 1: 123–133.
  • Chen J-J, Cui B-K, Dai Y-C (2015) Global diversity and molecular systematics of Wrightoporia s.l. (Russulales, Basidiomycota). Persoonia 37: 21–36. doi: 10.3767/003158516x689666
  • Chikowski RS, Larsson K-H, Gibertoni TB (2016) Three new combinations in Rhizochaete (Agaricomycetes, Fungi) and a new record to the Brazilian Amazonia. Nova Hedwigia 102: 185–196. doi: 10.1127/nova_hedwigia/2015/0298
  • Cochrane G, Karsch-Mizrachi I, Takagi TInternational Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration (2016) The International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration. Nucleic Acids Research 44: D48–D50. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv1323
  • Darriba D, Taboada GL, Doallo R, Posada D (2012) jModelTest 2: more models, new heuristics and parallel computing. Nature Methods 9: 772–772. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2109
  • De Koker TH, Nakasone KK, Haarhof J, Burdsall HH, Janse BJH (2003) Phylogenetic relationships of the genus Phanerochaete inferred from the internal transcribed spacer region. Mycological Research 107: 1032–1040. doi: 10.1017/s095375620300827x
  • Donk MA (1974) Check-list of European polypores. North-Holland Pub. Comp., Amsterdam.
  • Dvořák D, Běťák J, Tomšovský M (2014) Aurantiporus alborubescens (Basidiomycota, Polyporales) – first record in the Carpathians and notes on its systematic position. Czech Mycology 66: 71–84.
  • Dämmrich F (2014) Finaly a polypore on the Reynoutria japonica Houtt. Rhizomorphes 12: 7–9.
  • Floudas D, Hibbett DS (2015) Revisiting the taxonomy of Phanerochaete (Polyporales, Basidiomycota) using a four gene dataset and extensive ITS sampling. Fungal Biology 119: 679–719. doi: 10.1016/j.funbio.2015.04.003
  • Fortey RA, Ryvarden L (2007) Ceriporiopsis herbicola (Polyporaceae, Basidiomycota). Synopsis Fungorum 23: 13–14.
  • Fries EM (1821) Systema mycologicum 1. Ex officina Berlingiana, Lund, 520 pp.
  • Fries EM (1932) Systema mycologicum 3 (2). Sumptibus Ernesti Mauritii, Greifswald, 264 pp.
  • Fries EM (1836-1838) Epicrisis systematis mycologici. Typographia Academica, Uppsala, 612 pp.
  • Gilbertson RL, Adaskaveg JE (1993) Studies on wood-rotting basidiomycetes of Hawaii. Mycotaxon 49: 369–397.
  • Gilbertson RL, Ryvarden L (1986) North American Polypores Vol. 1. Abortiporus to Lindtneria. Fungiflora, Oslo, 454 pp.
  • Ginns JH (1969) The genus Merulius 2. Species of Merulius and Phlebia proposed by Lloyd. Mycologia 61: 357–372. doi: 10.2307/3757128
  • Greslebin A, Nakasone KK, Rajchenberg M (2004) Rhizochaete, a new genus of phanerochaetoid fungi. Mycologia 96: 260–271. doi: 10.2307/3762062
  • Hallenberg N, Ryberg M, Nilsson RH, Wood AR, Wu S-H (2008) Pseudolagarobasidium (Basidiomycota): on the reinstatement of a genus of parasitic, saprophytic, and endophytic resupinate fungi. Botany 86: 1319–1325. doi: 10.1139/b08-088
  • Hibbett DS, Binder M, Bischoff JF, Blackwell M, Cannon PF, Eriksson OE, Huhndorf S, James T, Kirk PM, Lucking R, Thorsten Lumbsch H, Lutzoni F, Matheny PB, McLaughlin DJ, Powell MJ, Redhead S, Schoch CL, Spatafora JW, Stalpers JA, Vilgalys R, Aime MC, Aptroot A, Bauer R, Begerow D, Benny GL, Castlebury LA, Crous PW, Dai YC, Gams W, Geiser DM, Griffith GW, Gueidan C, Hawksworth DL, Hestmark G, Hosaka K, Humber RA, Hyde KD, Ironside JE, Koljalg U, Kurtzman CP, Larsson KH, Lichtwardt R, Longcore J, Miadlikowska J, Miller A, Moncalvo JM, Mozley-Standridge S, Oberwinkler F, Parmasto E, Reeb V, Rogers JD, Roux C, Ryvarden L, Sampaio JP, Schussler A, Sugiyama J, Thorn RG, Tibell L, Untereiner WA, Walker C, Wang Z, Weir A, Weiss M, White MM, Winka K, Yao YJ, Zhang N (2007) A higher-level phylogenetic classification of the Fungi. Mycological Research 111: 509–547. doi: 10.1016/j.mycres.2007.03.004
  • Hjortstam K (1987) A check-list of genera and species of corticioid fungi (Hymenomycetes). Windahlia 17: 55–85.
  • Hjortstam K, Ryvarden L (1989) Lopharia and Porostereum (Basidiomycotina). Synopsis Fungorum 4: 1–68.
  • Hjortstam K, Ryvarden L (2010) Phaerodontia and Phaneroites two corticioid taxa (Basidiomycotina) proposed from tropical areas. Synopsis Fungorum 27: 26–33.
  • Hughes SJ (1958) Revisiones hyphomycetum aliquot cum appendice de nominibus rejiciendis. Canadian Journal of Botany 36: 727–836. doi: 10.1139/b58-067
  • Imazeki R, Hongo T (1965) Coloured illustrations of fungi of Japan, vol. 2. Hoikusha, Osaka.
  • Jia B-S, Cui B-K (2012) Two new species of Ceriporia (Basidiomycota, Polyporales) with a key to the accepted species in China. Mycotaxon 121: 305–312. doi: 10.5248/121.305
  • Jia B-S, Zhou L-W, Cui B-K, Rivoire B, Dai Y-C (2014) Taxonomy and phylogeny of Ceriporia (Polyporales, Basidiomycota) with an emphasis of Chinese collections. Mycological Progress 13: 81–93. doi: 10.1007/s11557-013-0895-5
  • Jülich W (1978) Studies in resuipnate basidiomycetes V. Persoonia 10: 137–140.
  • Junghuhn FW (1838) Praemissa in floram cryptogamicam Javae insulae.
  • Karsten PA (1881) Fungi novi, lecti atqve descripti a P. A. Karsten. Hedwigia 20: 177–179.
  • Karsten PA (1884) Hymenomycetes nonnilli novi in Gallia a proff. abb. Letendre, lecti. Revue Mycologique Toulouse 6: 214.
  • Katoh K, Standley DM (2013) MAFFT Multiple Sequence Alignment Software Version 7: Improvements in Performance and Usability. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30: 772–780. doi: 10.1093/molbev/mst010
  • Langer E (1994) Die Gattun Hyphodontia John Eriksson. Bibliotheca Mycologica 154: 1–298.
  • Larsson K-H (1994) Poroid species in Trechispora and the use of calcium oxalate crystals for species identification. Mycological Research 98: 1153–1172. doi: 10.1016/S0953-7562(09)80200-1
  • Larsson K-H (2007) Re-thinking the classification of corticioid fungi. Mycological Research 111: 1040–1063. doi: 10.1016/j.mycres.2007.08.001
  • Larsson K-H, Læssøe T, Yorou NS, Ryvarden L (2011) The phylogenetic position of Hydnodon and Scytinopogon. Inoculum 62: 28.
  • Larsson K-H, Parmasto E, Fischer M, Langer E, Nakasone KK, Redhead SA (2007 [‘2006’]) Hymenochaetales: a molecular phylogeny for the hymenochaetoid clade. Mycologia 98: 926–936. doi: 10.3852/mycologia.98.6.926
  • Li H, Cui B (2013) Taxonomy and phylogeny of the genus Megasporoporia and its related genera. Mycologia 105: 368–383. doi: 10.3852/12-114
  • Lowe JL (1956) Type studies of the polypores described by Karsten. Mycologia 1: 99–125. doi: 10.2307/3755782
  • Lowe JL (1966) Polyporaceae of North America. The genus Poria. State University College of Forestry at Syracuse University, Syracuse, 183 pp.
  • Maas Geesteranus RA (1974) Studies in the genera Irpex and Steccherinum. Persoonia 7: 443–581.
  • Matheny PB, Liu YJ, Ammirati JF, Hall BD (2002) Using RPB1 sequences to improve phylogenetic inference among mushrooms (Inocybe, Agaricales). Am J Bot 89: 688–698. doi: 10.3732/ajb.89.4.688
  • McLaughlin DJ, Spatafora JW (Eds) (2014) The Mycota, Systematics and Evolution 7A part A, 2nd ed. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 461 pp.
  • McLaughlin DJ, Spatafora JW (Eds) (2015) The Mycota, Systematics and Evolution, 7A part B, 2nd ed. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 311 pp.
  • Melo I, Hjortstam K (2002) Australohydnum dregeanum (Basidiomycetes, Stereaceae) in Europe. Nova Hedwigia 74: 527–532. doi: 10.1127/0029-5035/2002/0074-0527
  • Miettinen O, Larsson E, Sjökvist E, Larsson K-H (2012) Comprehensive taxon sampling reveals unaccounted diversity and morphological plasticity in a group of dimitic polypores (Polyporales, Basidiomycota). Cladistics 28: 251–270. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2011.00380.x
  • Miettinen O, Larsson K-H (2011) Sidera, a new genus in Hymenochaetales with poroid and hydnoid species. Mycological Progress 10: 131–141. doi: 10.1007/s11557-010-0682-5
  • Murray MG, Thompson WF (1980) Rapid isolation of high molecular weight plant DNA. Nucleic Acids Research 8: 4321–4325. doi: 10.1093/nar/8.19.4321
  • Murrill WA (1904) The Polyporaceae of North America-VIII. Hapalopilus, Pycnoporus, and new monotypic genera Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 31: 415–428. doi: 10.2307/2478892
  • Müller J, Müller K, Quandt D (2010) PhyDE – Phylogenetic Data Editor, version 0.997.
  • Nakasone KK (1996) Morphological and molecular studies on Auriculariopsis albomellea and Phlebia albida and a reassessment of A. ampla. Mycologia 88: 762–775. doi: 10.2307/3760971
  • Niemelä T (2005) Käävät, puiden sienet. Polypores, lignicolous fungi. Norrlinia 13: 1–320.
  • Niemelä T, Miettinen O, Manninen O (2012) Aurantiporus priscus (Basidiomycota), a new polypore from old fallen conifer trees. Annales Botanici Fennici 49: 201–205. doi: 10.5735/085.049.0308
  • Nuñez M, Ryvarden L (2000) East Asian polypores, volume 1 - Ganodermataceae and Hymenochaetaceae. Synopsis Fungorum 13: 1–168.
  • Peck CH (1885) Report of the Botanist (1884). Annual Report on the New York State Museum of Natural History 38: 77–138.
  • Persoon CH (1798) Icones et Descriptiones Fungorum Minus Cognitorum. Breitkopf-Haertel, Leipzig, 37 pp.
  • Pieri M, Rivoire B (1997) À propos du genre Ceriporia Donk (Aphyllophoromycetidae). Bulletin de la Societe Mycologique de France 113: 193–250.
  • Rahimlou S, Bose T, Babaeizad V, Sayari M, Tajick MA (2015) Molecular data confirm the mitosporic state of Hyphodermella rosae (Phanerochaetaceae) as the pathogen of rosaceous fruits in northern Iran. Sydowia 67: 189–196.
  • Reid DA (1955) New or interesting records of Australasian Basidiomycetes. Kew Bulletin 4: 631–648. doi: 10.2307/4113780
  • Reid DA (1963) New or interesting records of Australasian Basidiomycetes V. Kew Bulletin 17: 267–308. doi: 10.2307/4118959
  • Reid DA (1969) Spring fungi in Corsica. Revue de Mycologie 33: 237–267.
  • Romell L (1926) Remarks on some species of Polyporus. Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift 20: 1–24.
  • Ronquist F, Teslenko M, van der Mark P, Ayres DL, Darling A, Höhna S, Larget B, Liu L, Suchard MA, Huelsenbeck JP (2012) MrBayes 3.2: Efficient Bayesian Phylogenetic Inference and Model Choice Across a Large Model Space. Systematic Biology 61: 539–542. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/sys029
  • Ryvarden L (1981) Type studies in the Polyporaceae 12. Species described by F. W. Junghuhn. Persoonia 11: 369–372.
  • Ryvarden L (1984) Type studies in the Polyporaceae 16. Species described by J. M. Berkeley, either alone or with other mycologists from 1856 to 1886. Mycotaxon 20: 329–363.
  • Ryvarden L (1991) Genera of polypores. Nomenclature and taxonomy. Synopsis Fungorum 5: 1–363.
  • Ryvarden L, Gilbertson RL (1993) European polypores. Part 1. Abortiporus-Lindtneria. Fungiflora, Oslo, 387 pp.
  • Ryvarden L, Johansen I (1980) A preliminary polypore flora of East Africa. Fungiflora, Oslo, 636 pp.
  • Ryvarden L, Melo I (2014) Poroid fungi of Europe. Fungiflora, Oslo, 455 pp.
  • Stalpers J (1984) A revision of the genus Sporotrichum. Studies in Mycology 24: 1–105.
  • Stamatakis A (2014) RAxML Version 8: A tool for Phylogenetic Analysis and Post-Analysis of Large Phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30: 1312–1313. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu033
  • Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A, Kumar S (2013) MEGA6: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis Version 6.0. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30: 2725–2729. doi: 10.1093/molbev/mst197
  • Telleria MT, Duenas M, Melo I, Hallenberg N, Martin MP (2010) A re-evaluation of Hypochnicium (Polyporales) based on morphological and molecular characters. Mycologia 102: 1426–1436. doi: 10.3852/09-242
  • Thorn RG, Moncalvo J-M, Redhead SA, Lodge DJ, Martín MP (2005) A new poroid species of Resupinatus from Puerto Rico, with a reassessment of the cyphelloid genus Stigmatolemma. Mycologia 97: 1140–1151. doi: 10.3852/mycologia.97.5.1140
  • Vampola P, Pouzar Z (1996) Notes on some species of genera Ceriporia and Ceriporiopsis (Polyporales). Czech Mycology 48: 315–324.
  • Volobuev S, Okun M, Ordynets A, Spirin V (2015) The Phanerochaete sordida group (Polyporales, Basidiomycota) in temperate Eurasia, with a note on Phanerochaete pallida. Mycological Progress 14: 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s11557-015-1097-0
  • Wakefield EM (1952) New or rare British hymenomycetes (Aphyllophorales). Transactions of the British Mycological Society 35: 34–65. doi: 10.1016/S0007-1536(52)80006-3
  • Wu S-H (2000) Six new species of Phanerochaete from Taiwan. Botanical Bulletin of Academia Sinica 48: 165–174.
  • Wu S-H (2004) Two new species of Phanerochaete from Taiwan. Mycotaxon 90: 423–429.
  • Wu S-H, Chen Z-C (1992) Notes on resupinate basidiomycetes of Taiwan 2. Two new record Porostereum species. Bulletin of the National Museum of Natural Science, Taichung 3: 267–271.
  • Wu S-H, Nilsson HR, Chen C-T, Yu S-Y, Hallenberg N (2010) The white-rotting genus Phanerochaete is polyphyletic and distributed throughout the phleboid clade of the Polyporales (Basidiomycota). Fungal Diversity 42: 107–118. doi: 10.1007/s13225-010-0031-7
  • Zmitrovich IV, Malysheva VF (2014) Studies on Oxyporus. I. Segregation of Emmia and general topology of phylogenetic tree. Mikologia i Fitopatologia 48: 161–171.
  • Zmitrovich IV, Malysheva VF, Spirin WA (2006) A new morphological arrangement of the Polyporales I. Phanerochaetineae. Mycena 6: 4–56.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 

S1 Table - INSDC accession numbers

Otto Miettinen, Viacheslav Spirin, Josef Vlasák, Bernard Rivoire, Soili Stenroos, David Hibbett

Data type: DNA sequence identifiers

Explanation note: INSDC accession numbers for DNA sequences used in this study. Specimens provided with collector and collection number information have been sequenced for this study, the rest retrieved from the INSDC database.

This dataset is made available under the Open Database License ( The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.
Download file (17.28 kb)
login to comment