The genus Cortinarius should not (yet) be split.

IF 5.2 1区 生物学 Q1 MYCOLOGY
Brigida Gallone, Thomas W Kuyper, Jorinde Nuytinck
{"title":"The genus Cortinarius should not (yet) be split.","authors":"Brigida Gallone, Thomas W Kuyper, Jorinde Nuytinck","doi":"10.1186/s43008-024-00159-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The genus Cortinarius (Agaricales, Basidiomycota) is one of the most species-rich fungal genera, with thousands of species reported. Cortinarius species are important ectomycorrhizal fungi and form associations with many vascular plants globally. Until recently Cortinarius was the single genus of the family Cortinariaceae, despite several attempts to provide a workable, lower-rank hierarchical structure based on subgenera and sections. The first phylogenomic study for this group elevated the old genus Cortinarius to family level and the family was split into ten genera, of which seven were described as new. Here, by careful re-examination of the recently published phylogenomic dataset, we detected extensive gene-tree/species-tree conflicts using both concatenation and multispecies coalescent approaches. Our analyses demonstrate that the Cortinarius phylogeny remains unresolved and the resulting phylogenomic hypotheses suffer from very short and unsupported branches in the backbone. We can confirm monophyly of only four out of ten suggested new genera, leaving uncertain the relationships between each other and the general branching order. Thorough exploration of the tree space demonstrated that the topology on which Cortinarius revised classification relies on does not represent the best phylogenetic hypothesis and should not be used as constrained topology to include additional species. For this reason, we argue that based on available evidence the genus Cortinarius should not (yet) be split. Moreover, considering that phylogenetic uncertainty translates to taxonomic uncertainty, we advise for careful evaluation of phylogenomic datasets before proposing radical taxonomic and nomenclatural changes.</p>","PeriodicalId":54345,"journal":{"name":"Ima Fungus","volume":"15 1","pages":"24"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11321212/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ima Fungus","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43008-024-00159-4","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MYCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The genus Cortinarius (Agaricales, Basidiomycota) is one of the most species-rich fungal genera, with thousands of species reported. Cortinarius species are important ectomycorrhizal fungi and form associations with many vascular plants globally. Until recently Cortinarius was the single genus of the family Cortinariaceae, despite several attempts to provide a workable, lower-rank hierarchical structure based on subgenera and sections. The first phylogenomic study for this group elevated the old genus Cortinarius to family level and the family was split into ten genera, of which seven were described as new. Here, by careful re-examination of the recently published phylogenomic dataset, we detected extensive gene-tree/species-tree conflicts using both concatenation and multispecies coalescent approaches. Our analyses demonstrate that the Cortinarius phylogeny remains unresolved and the resulting phylogenomic hypotheses suffer from very short and unsupported branches in the backbone. We can confirm monophyly of only four out of ten suggested new genera, leaving uncertain the relationships between each other and the general branching order. Thorough exploration of the tree space demonstrated that the topology on which Cortinarius revised classification relies on does not represent the best phylogenetic hypothesis and should not be used as constrained topology to include additional species. For this reason, we argue that based on available evidence the genus Cortinarius should not (yet) be split. Moreover, considering that phylogenetic uncertainty translates to taxonomic uncertainty, we advise for careful evaluation of phylogenomic datasets before proposing radical taxonomic and nomenclatural changes.

Cortinarius 属(目前)还不应该拆分。
Cortinarius 属(姬松茸目,担子菌科)是物种最丰富的真菌属之一,据报道有数千种。Cortinarius 属物种是重要的外生菌根真菌,与全球许多维管植物形成结合。直到最近,Cortinarius 仍是 Cortinariaceae 科的单属,尽管曾多次尝试根据亚属和科提供可行的低级层次结构。对该类群的首次系统发生学研究将旧属 Cortinarius 提升到科级,科被分为 10 属,其中 7 属被描述为新属。在这里,通过对最近发表的系统发生组数据集进行仔细的重新审查,我们利用连接和多物种聚合方法发现了广泛的基因树/物种树冲突。我们的分析表明,Cortinarius 的系统发育仍未得到解决,由此产生的系统发育假说的骨干分支非常短且缺乏支持。在 10 个新属中,我们只能确认其中 4 个属的单系,因此无法确定它们之间的关系以及一般的分支顺序。对树状空间的深入探索表明,Cortinarius 修订分类所依赖的拓扑结构并不代表最佳的系统发育假说,不应被用作包含更多物种的约束拓扑结构。因此,我们认为根据现有的证据,Cortinarius 属(目前)还不应该被拆分。此外,考虑到系统发生学的不确定性会转化为分类学的不确定性,我们建议在提出彻底的分类学和命名法改变之前,对系统发生学数据集进行仔细评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ima Fungus
Ima Fungus Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
3.70%
发文量
18
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: The flagship journal of the International Mycological Association. IMA Fungus is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, full colour, fast-track journal. Papers on any aspect of mycology are considered, and published on-line with final pagination after proofs have been corrected; they are then effectively published under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. The journal strongly supports good practice policies, and requires voucher specimens or cultures to be deposited in a public collection with an online database, DNA sequences in GenBank, alignments in TreeBASE, and validating information on new scientific names, including typifications, to be lodged in MycoBank. News, meeting reports, personalia, research news, correspondence, book news, and information on forthcoming international meetings are included in each issue
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信