Studies on Amanita (Basidiomycetes: Amanitaceae) in Northern Thailand

Specimens of the genus Amanita, collected from northern Thailand and deposited in the fungal herbarium of Chiang Mai University and some overseas herbaria were studied. Twenty-five taxa, including eighteen new to Thailand, are described briefly. A key to species is provided. The new records for Thailand are A. alboflavescens, A. avellaneosquamosa, A. chepangiana, A. clarisquamosa, A. flavipes sensu lato, A. fritillaria, A. fuliginea, A. hongoi, A japonica, A. manginiana sensu W.F. Chui, A. obsita, A. ovalispora, A. pseudoporphyria, A. rubrovolvata, A. sinensis, A. sinocitrina, A. subglobosa, and A. virgineoides. A type study of A. pudibunda is included. Amanita frostiana sensu R. Heim is proposed to be properly diagnosed as A. rubrovolvata

The genus Amanita should not be split

Recently the well-known genus Amanita has been split into two genera, Amanita, a genus of putativelyectomycorrhizal fungi, and Saproamanita, a genus of putatively saprotrophic fungi. We disagree with this genericsplit and argue why Amanita should not be split. The proposal to split the genus does not conform to the recently proposedguidelines for publishing new genera. Concise amended characterizations are provided for the monophyleticfamily Amanitaceae and its two monophyletic genera Amanita and Limacella.2 The characterization of Amanita restson a single, unique synapomorphy—schizohymenial ontogeny in its agaricoid and secotioid taxa. We propose a minimalreorganization of Amanita—removal of stirps Hesleri from subsection Vittadiniae. Some open issues in Amanitasystematics are discussed. Amanita is an emblematic genus and the focus of diverse research programs.Taxonomists and users of taxonomic and systematic products are used to, and rely on, Amanita as a genus with meaningful,morphologically defined subdivisions, easy to teach and easy to use. Splitting the genus is unnecessary andwould prove costly—degrading our ability to communicate with each other and complicating connections to past literature.We argue that the current use of next-generation sequencing in studies of fungal ecology does not necessitatethe splitting of Amanita

The genus Amanita should not be split

Recently the well-known genus Amanita has been split into two genera, Amanita, a genus of putativelyectomycorrhizal fungi, and Saproamanita, a genus of putatively saprotrophic fungi. We disagree with this genericsplit and argue why Amanita should not be split. The proposal to split the genus does not conform to the recently proposedguidelines for publishing new genera. Concise amended characterizations are provided for the monophyleticfamily Amanitaceae and its two monophyletic genera Amanita and Limacella.2 The characterization of Amanita restson a single, unique synapomorphy—schizohymenial ontogeny in its agaricoid and secotioid taxa. We propose a minimalreorganization of Amanita—removal of stirps Hesleri from subsection Vittadiniae. Some open issues in Amanitasystematics are discussed. Amanita is an emblematic genus and the focus of diverse research programs.Taxonomists and users of taxonomic and systematic products are used to, and rely on, Amanita as a genus with meaningful,morphologically defined subdivisions, easy to teach and easy to use. Splitting the genus is unnecessary andwould prove costly—degrading our ability to communicate with each other and complicating connections to past literature.We argue that the current use of next-generation sequencing in studies of fungal ecology does not necessitatethe splitting of Amanita