Phylogenetic
support Tribe Chromosereae is supported by all molecular phylogenies. Support is strong in our 4-gene backbone analysis (100 % MLBS, 1.0 BPP), Supermatrix (85 % MLBS), LSU (98 %), ITS-LSU (100 % MLBS) and moderate in Dentinger et al.’s ITS analysis (unpublished data, 63 % MLBS). Support for this clade is lower in our ITS analysis (54 % MLBS, Online Resource 3). Previous find more studies also support tribe Chromosereae (represented by C. cyanophylla and C. citrinopallida). Support shown is 90 % MPBS in Moncalvo et al. (2002; LSU), 100 % MLBS in Lawrey et al. (2009; ITS-LSU), and 1.0 BPP and 96 % MLBS in Vizzini and Ercole (2012; ITS, with addition of C. viola and C. xanthochroa). The Supermatrix and ITS-LSU analyses place this group near Gliophorus, supporting Kühner (1980). Genera included Tribe Chromosereae currently is comprised of the type genus, Chromosera, and a new genus, Gloioxanthomyces, erected for Hygrocybe nitida and H. vitellina. Chromosera Redhead, Ammirati &Norvell, Beih. Sydowia 10: 161 learn more (1995), Vizzini & Ercole, Micol. Veget. Medit. 26(1): 97 (2012). Type species: Agaricus cyanophyllus Fr., Öfvers. Kongl. Svensk Vet.-Akad. Förh. 18(1): 23 (1861) ≡ Chromosera cyanophylla (Fr.) Redhead, Ammirati & Norvell, Mycotaxon 118: 456 (2012) [2011]. Emended by Vizzini
& Ercole, Micol. Veget. Medit. 26(2): 97 (2012) [2011]. Characters as in Tribe Chromosereae except for absence of gelatinization of lamellar edge and cheilocystidia; ephemeral dextrinoid reactions in the context, ephemeral pigment bodies in the pileipellis and lilac pigments sometimes present. Phylogenetic support Except for our ITS analysis by Ercole which shows 62 % MLBS support for Chromosera, support for this clade is the same as noted above for tribe Chromosereae. Greater taxon and gene sampling are needed to refine this group. check details Subgenera included Comprising three subgenera: Chromosera, Subomphalia Vizzini, Lodge & Padamsee, subg. nov. and subg. Oreocybe (Boertm.) Vizzini & Lodge, comb. nov. Comments
Chromosera was proposed for what was believed a single amphi-Atlantic species, C. cyanophylla (Redhead et al. 1995, 2012) based on Agaricus cyanophyllus Fr. from Europe and A. lilacifolius Peck from the eastern USA. These species were originally classified among the omphalioid spp. in Agaricus (Omphalia), Omphalia, or Omphalina (Fries 1861; Peck 1872; Peck 1878; Quélet 1886; Murrill 1916). In the 20th century, some authors retained C. cyanophylla in Omphalina (Courtecuisse 1986; Krieglsteiner and Enderle 1987). Singer (1942) transferred A. lilacifolius to Clitocybe (a PRIMA-1MET mw placement rejected by Bigelow, 1970), while Smith (1947) placed it in Mycena based on the dextrinoid hyphae in the stipe and pileus context and viscid stipe. While Singer (1949) [1951] accepted Smith’s classification of A. lilacifolius in Mycena, Kühner (1980) placed A. cyanophyllus in Hygrocybe subg. Gliophorus but his new combination was not validly published.