Mycetinis epidryas ( Kuehner ) Antonin & Noordeloos. 2008. Czech Mycol. 60: 26.

Petersen, Ronald H. & Hughes, Karen W., 2017, An investigation on Mycetinis (Euagarics, Basidiomycota), MycoKeys 24, pp. 1-138 : 64

Mycetinis epidryas ( Kuehner) Antonin & Noordeloos. 2008. Czech Mycol. 60: 26.

Marasmius epidryas Basionym. Kühner ex A. Ronikier 2009. Mycol. Progr. 8: 381 [ Marasmius epidryas Kühner "1935 " (1936). Ann. Soc. Linn. Lyon 79: 17, nom. inval.]. ≡ Rhzomarasmius epidryas ( Kühner) M. Ronikier & A. Ronikier. 2011. Mycologia 103: 1124-1132.

Notes.

Marasmius epidryas is excluded from Mycetinis taxonomically by its phylogenetic placement in the Physalacriaceae . Ronkier and Ronikier (2011) showed a close relationship of M. epidryas to Rhizomarasmius pyrrhocephalus . Morphologically, microstructures had been accepted as similar to members of Mycetinis ( Antonín & Noordeloos, 2008).

Nomenclaturally, Kühner's protologue did not include a Latin diagnosis, mandated shortly before the appearance of his publication. Ronikier (2009) explicitly validated M. epidryas .

Selection of a type specimen is also problematic. Antonín and Noordeloos (1993) considered that no type had been explicitly declared by Kühner "1935 " (1936). Instead, they designated a neotype, "France, Haute-Savoie, Pralognan, 26.VIII.1968, R. Kühner (G)." As part of validation of the basionym, however, Ronikier (2009) designated a specimen with data agreeing with Kühner's original text ("En troupes denses sur les rochers, dans les trouffes de Dryas octopetala , an début de septembre, dans la région de Bozel, près de Moutiers-Salins (Savoie)." Ronikier's designation, however, was termed a holotype, a specimen which could only have been designated by Kühner, himself. Instead, Ronikier's selection must be considered a lectotype, this error being correctable under nomenclature rules.

Redhead et al. (1982) summarized literature on distribution of the species.