s. Karsten (1876) recognized the genera Hygrophorus Fr. (rather than Limacium sensu Kummer), Camarophyllus and Hygrocybe (misspelled as ‘Hydrocybe’). That led to confusion with Hydrocybe Fr. – a segregate of Cortinarius. Karsten corrected his misspelling of Hydrocybe to ‘Hygrocybe’ in later publications, but Murrill (1911–1942) perpetuated Karsten’s spelling error. Murrill’s Hydrocybe is regarded as an orthographic variant of Hygrocybe CA4P chemical structure so his names are otherwise valid, legitimate, and corrected to Hygrocybe names and combinations. The Hygrophoraceae was originally characterized by basidiomes with thick, distant, waxy lamellae,

spores that were mostly smooth, hyaline and inamyloid, and basidia five or more times the length of their spores (Singer 1986). We now recognize

these characters are not as reliable as they once seemed (Lawrey et al. 2009; Lodge et al. 2006; Matheny et al. 2006; Young 1997), leading Bas (1988) to transfer genera from the Hygrophoraceae to the Tricholomataceae. Subsequent phylogenetic analyses (i.e., Binder et al. 2010; Lawrey et al. 2009; Matheny et al. 2006; Moncalvo et al. 2002) placed most of the genera traditionally treated in Hygrophoraceae apart from the Tricholomataceae. Matheny et al. (2006) were first to show strong support for a monophyletic selleck inhibitor Hygrophoraceae. The Hygrophoraceae appears to be mostly biotrophic based on stable carbon and nitrogen isotope signatures, though only the type genus, Hygrophorus, forms ectomycorrhizal associations with tree roots (Seitzman et al. 2011; Tedersoo et al. 2010). Acantholichen, Cora, Corella, Cyphellostereum, Dictyonema, Lichenomphalia and Semiomphalina species form lichens with green algae or cyanobacteria (Lawrey et al. 2009; Matheny et al. 2006; Redhead et al. 2002), Eonema is associated with live ferns and grasses (Lawrey et al. 2009), and Arrhenia

and Cantharellula are generally associated with bryophytes (Lawrey selleck products et al. 2009). Biotic relationships for the remaining genera of Hygrophoraceae are enigmatic (Seitzman et al. 2011). Currently, Hygrophoraceae comprises over 600 species (not all described) in 25 named genera and one new genus (Tables 1 and 2), and is thus one of the larger families in the Agaricales. Moncalvo et al. (2002) identified many phylogenetic clades that were later supported as belonging to the Hygrophoraceae by Lodge et al. (2006), Matheny et al. (2006), Lawrey et al. (2009) and Binder et al. (2010). Neither Binder et al. (2010) nor Seitzman et al. (2011) found support for a monophyletic family, but Matheny et al. (2006) found STI571 ic50 Bayesian support for a monophyletic Hygrophoraceae s.l. if Camarophyllopsis and Neohygrophorus were excluded. Table 1 Alternative classifications for Hygrophoraceae, subfamily Hygrocyboideae using the segregate genera accepted in this paper versus the aggregate genus, Hygrocybe s.l.