Hapalopilus rutilans (Pers.) Murrill

Miettinen, Otto, Spirin, Viacheslav, Vlasak, Josef, Rivoire, Bernard, Stenroos, Soili & Hibbett, David S., 2016, Polypores and genus concepts in Phanerochaetaceae (Polyporales, Basidiomycota), MycoKeys 17, pp. 1-46 : 12-14

Hapalopilus rutilans (Pers.) Murrill Figures 5aand 6h

Boletus rutilans Pers., Icones et Descriptiones Fungorum Minus Cognitorum 1: 19, t. 6:3 (1798).

Hapalopilus nidulans (Fr.) P. Karst.

Remarks.

This common species has gone under two names, Hapalopilus rutilans and Hapalopilus nidulans . Many authors have chosen to use Hapalopilus nidulans over Hapalopilus 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 Hapalopilus 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 Inonotus sensu lato. The original description of Hapalopilus 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: Hapalopilus 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 Hapalopilus 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 Hapalopilus 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).