Polyporus
Polyporus P. Micheli ex Adans. 1763, in Cui, et al., Fungal Diversity 97, 137–392 (2019)
Diagnosis: Basidiocarps annual, centrally to laterally stipitate, soft to corky when fresh, usually fragile to hard when dry. Pileal surface cream to deep brown, smooth to squamulose. Pore surface white to cream, cream to yellowish brown when dry; pores round to angular, small to large. Context white to cream, corky. Tubes cream to pale tan, fragile to corky. Stipe surface varying from white to black, glabrous to finely tomentose. Hyphal system dimitic; generative hyphae usually bearing clamp connections, thin-walled, hyaline; skeletal hyphae thick-walled to subsolid, moderately branched with tapering ends, IKI–, CB+. Cystidia absent; cystidioles frequent, often subulate. Basidia clavate, with four sterigmata and a basal clamp connection. Basidiospores mainly oblong to cylindrical, sometimes navicular, hyaline, thin-walled, smooth, IKI–, CB–.
Index Fungorum Number: IF18334
Type species: Polyporus tuberaster (Jacq. ex Pers.) Fr. 1821, in Cui, et al., Fungal Diversity 97, 137–392 (2019)
Notes: Polyporus was established by Micheli (1729) and validated by Adanson (1763). Most subsequent authors consider P. tuberaster as the lectotype of this genus (Donk 1960; Cunningham 1965; Singer 1986; Niemela¨ & Kotiranta 1991; Ryvarden 1991; Núñez & Ryvarden 1995; Silveira & Wright 2005; Sotome et al. 2008; Lee et al. 2010; Dai et al. 2014; Zhou et al. 2016), but several other species are also supported by others, such as P. squamosus (= P. ulmi Paulet) (Murrill 1903, 1904; Corner 1984; Ryvarden & Gilbertson 1994; Zhao 1998; Ryvarden & Melo 2014), P. brumalis (Pers.) Fr. (Clements and Shear 1931; Krüger & Gargas 2004), P. arcularius (Batsch) Fr. (Cunningham 1948). In order to maintain nomenclatural stability, Cui et al. (2019) agreed with Donk (1960) that Polyporus was divided into six infrageneric groups according to morphological characters by Núñez & Ryvarden (1995) as follows: group Admirabilis, group Dendropolyporus [= Dendropolyporus (Pouzar) Jülich], group Favolus (= Favolus Fr.), group Melanopus (= Melanopus Pat.), group Polyporellus (= Polyporellus P. Karst.) and group Polyporus. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that Polyporus is polyphyletic (Ko & Jung 2002), and this attitude has been demonstrated by others (Krüger 2002; Krüger & Gargas 2004; Krüger et al. 2006; Sotome et al. 2008; Binder et al. 2013; Dai et al. 2014; Zmitrovich & Kovalenko 2016). Six major clades were proposed based on molecular analyses, but these clades did not conform to the six morphological groups (Sotome et al. 2008; Zhou et al. 2016). Sotome et al. (2013) segregated group Favolus into two different genera, Favolus typified by F. brasiliensis (Fr.) Fr. and Neofavolus Sotome & T. Hatt. typified by N. alveolaris (DC.) Sotome & T. Hatt., according to phylogenetic and morphological analyses. Besides, group Melanopus was divided into two distinct clades: picipes clade and squamosus clade (Zhou et al. 2016), and the picipes clade has been described as genus Picipes Zmitr. et Kovalenko (Zmitrovich & Kovalenko 2016). Hence, the so called Polyporus is treated as four distinct genera: Favolus, Neofavolus, Picipes and Polyporus (Cui et al. 2019)
Reference:
Cui, B.K., & Li, H.J., & Ji, X., & Zhou, J.L., & Song, J. & Si, J., & Yang, Z.L., & Dai, Y.C. (2019). Species diversity, taxonomy and phylogeny of Polyporaceae (Basidiomycota) in China. Fungal Diversity 97, 137–392
Recent Genus
BoreostereumBoidinia
Australovuilleminia
Recent Species
Dictyocephalos attenuatusOliveonia fibrillosa
Tricholomella constricta