87 B.P. and moderate in our Supermatrix analysis (65 % MLBS). Seitzman et al. (2011) show a strongly supported (82 % MPBS) Cuphophyllus as sister to the rest of the Hygrophoraceae using Akt inhibitor primarily ITS (5.8S) data. In contrast, the five-gene Supermatrix analysis by Matheny et al. (2006) places Ampulloclitocybe between Cuphophyllus and the rest of the Hygrophoraceae, while the six-gene RAxML analysis by Binder et al. (2010) places both Ampulloclitocybe and Cantharocybe between Cuphophyllus and the rest of the Hygrophoraceae. An LSU analysis by Moncalvo et al. (2002) shows the only true Cuphophyllus (C. pratensis) as an independent clade apart from the Hygrophoraceae.

In their ITS-LSU analyses, Vizzini et al. (2012) show Cuphophyllus as basal to part of the Tricholomataceae and Hygrophoraceae, making

the Hygrophoraceae a paraphyletic grade and the Tricholomataceae polyphyletic if Cuphophyllus is included in the Hygrophoraceae (64 % MLBS and 1.0 B.P. whereas Lawrey et al. (2009) show it among the genera of the basal hygrophoroid clade. While the majority of species named GSK126 in Cuphophyllus are ones with interwoven lamellar trama hyphae, the type species of its often applied synonym Camarophyllus, Agaricus camarophyllus Alb. & Schwein. :Fr., has divergent lamellar trama and is placed in gen. Hygrophorus s.s. Thus, the name, Camarophyllus, can only be applied to a group in Hygrophorus typified by A. camarophyllus Fries (1836). Singer (1986) argued that A. pratensis should be the type species for subgen. Camarophyllus

as it was the one (of four noted) that most closely matched the protologue. Contrary to Singer’s arguments, A. camarophyllus was automatically the type of the subgenus named after it under Art. 22.6. Thus, Singer was incorrect in selecting a new type, A. pratensis, as the type of subgen. Camarophyllus, which he raised to genus rank. Donk (1962) recognized the nomenclature problem and erected subgen. Cuphophyllus in Hygrocybe for the species with interwoven lamellar trama (Fig. 23), which Bon (1985) [1984] subsequently raised to genus rank. Thus, Carnitine palmitoyltransferase II Cuphophyllus (Donk) Bon is the correct name for this genus. Further discussion can be found in Donk (1962), Courtecuisse and Fiard (2005), Melot (2005) and Young (2005). Fig. 23 Cuphophyllus, sect. Fornicati, Cuphophyllus acutoides var. pallidus lamellar cross section (DJL06TN124, Tennessee, Great Smoky Mt. Nat. Park, USA). Scale bar = 20 μm Sections included Adonidum, Cuphophyllus, Fornicati comb. nov., and Virginei. Comments As noted previously, Cuphophyllus is the correct name of this genus, and the name Camarophyllus that was applied to this group by Singer (1986) and others can only be referred to a group in Hygrophorus s.s. typified by H. camarophyllus. Donk (1962) erected subgen. Cuphophyllus in gen.