Phanerochaete inflata (B.S. Jia & B.K. Cui) Miettinen

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 : 19

Phanerochaete inflata (B.S. Jia & B.K. Cui) Miettinen comb. nov.

Ceriporia inflata B.S. Jia & B.K. Cui, Mycotaxon 121: 306 (2012).

Remarks.

We have chosen to apply the genus name Phanerochaete for most of the Phanerochaete clade, excluding the three polypore genera Oxychaete , Phanerina and Riopa (Figure 2). Morphologically, species in the Phanerochaete clade share microscopic characters such as simple-septate, relatively simple, loose hyphal structure, mid-sized hymenial cells, mid-sized straight cylindrical to narrow ellipsoid spores, and cystidia of subhymenial origin (Table 1 and 2). However, cystidia are rare and poorly differentiated or absent in three of the polypores (in the genera Phanerina and Riopa ), and spores are distinctly curved in two species ( Riopa ). The third newly introduced polypore genus Oxychaete with its encrusted cystidia and large spores produces pileate and poroid basidiocarps. With the inclusion of these species, the genus Phanerochaete would become difficult to define morphologically.

Ceriporia inflata described by Jia and Cui (2012) belongs to Phanerochaetaceae with Phanerochaete raduloides as the closest relative (Figure 2). The hymenophore of Ceriporia inflata is composed of irregular pores with lacerate mouths, and that of Phanerochaete raduloides of irregular teeth. Also Ceriporia jianxiensis (no sequence available) described in the same paper as Ceriporia inflata may be closely related. Their identity against Phanerochaete capitata and Phanerochaete aculeata along with other species in the Phanerochaete raduloides group should be checked.

For now we consider Ceriporia inflata a species of Phanerochaete . Splitting the hydnoid-poroid Phanerochaete of this group into a separate genus (possibly Phanerodontia Hjortstam) would make it necessary to split Phanerochaete into many small genera and would place morphologically very similar corticioid species into separate genera. For this reason we strongly prefer a wide concept of Phanerochaete that includes the hydnoid and poroid members, which are microscopically very similar to Phanerochaete sensu typi. See Tables 1 and 2 for characterization of the genus against similar genera in the Phanerochaetaceae .

Hjortstam and Ryvarden (2010) described Phanericium and Phanerodontia for a few species placed traditionally in Phanerochaete . Their Phanerodontia includes four taxa with smooth to hydnoid hymenophores. Phanerodontia is probably a taxonomic synonym of Phanerochaete . Although the type, Phanerodontia dentata , has not been sequenced, two other members of the genus have ( Phanerochaete chrysosporium and Phanerochaete magnoliae ). They clearly belong to Phanerochaete , and according to the rpb1 dataset to the same subclade within the genus with smooth to poroid members (Figure 3). Phanerodontia dentata does not closely resemble any polypore genus discussed here (except Phanerochaete ) with its combination of thin-walled tubular cystidia, long basidia, thick-walled subicular hyphae and ellipsoid spores.

Phanericium is a monotypic genus, and the type Phanerochaete subquercinum is characterized by hydnoid, effused fruiting bodies, absence of cystidia, hyphae of even width throughout the fruiting body and broad ellipsoid spores. This set of characters does not closely match taxa discussed in detail in this paper, and more detailed study is needed to conclude whether the genus belongs to Phaerochaetaceae.