Taxonomic Swap 63875
(Committed on 2020-06-14)
|
|
replaced with |
|
Comments
I'm in favor of recognizing Saproamanita, and I think the community consensus has moved in that direction, but it's a contentious one.
@cooperj - i still have not seen enough evidence to recognize Saproamanita as a separate genus - i'm not convinced that it is monophyletic.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-018-0405-9(0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().,-volV)
is leaning in that direction with a ML BS of 77
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-018-0405-9; I don't know why, but Fungal Diversity DOIs often copy with a lot of extraneous numbers and letters after.
whoops - yes - I just cut and paste without checking
my argument would be that these authors only include 4 Lepidella species out of the 26 in these analyses.
and i've seen other phylogenies with Lepidella made up of three separate clades, as a grade, not a monophyletic group.
I guess that depends on what you incorporate in Lepidella, but with the type being Amanita vittadinii the increasing multi-gene data does suggest it is embedded in a monophyletic group that is basal along with Limacella, Limacellopsis, Catatrama and Zhuliangomyces. And that agrees with both the morphological and physiological characteristics of the group. But, based on current published papers I agree it is still debatable.
I have a paper on the group but it will be a while before it appears and so cannot be considered but does bias my view. 15 species in the group are sampled and the analysis of 9 loci pushes the support higher in both ML and Bayesian.
@else @cooperj