Taxonomic Merge 83491
(Tehty 13-06-2022)
|
|
yhdistetty |
|
Kommentit
I've not come across any discussion. However, there are quite a number of entries in that recent classification that I think require more elaboration. I am not convinced this particular family-level equivalence is fully supported by the data. It certainly isn't in the case of Clavulinaceae = Cantharellaceae/Hydnaceae from the data I have analyzed. Note their analysis did not include any species of Clavulina. Ditto a number of other assertions in the paper.
These seem to date back to something in a book I haven't been able to access this weekend: http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55318-9_14
I'd not seen that.
Nevertheless I 'd prefer to see a convincing, well-sampled and supported phylogeny with the family-level clades.
Yeah, everything I am finding is really just a one-gene phylogeny with fine support, but more would be better. I see that Agaric.us accepts Cantharellus in Hydnaceae, but I don't imagine it is based on much more than I have seen.
Relatively few genera in the order but substantial unsampled diversity and not much coordination in the analysis. For what it's worth I pulled together a multi-gene set on the little available data and put it against this record ...
https://inaturalist.org/observations/1045731
Hydnaceae/Cantharellaceae remains unresolved in my view, but I guess the entire clade including Clavulinaceae could be lumped under Hydnaceae. It just doesn't 'feel right'. But happy to go with flow.
How is the Order named? I thought they were based on first described species?
An order is named after a genus contained in it. Priority doesn't apply above the rank of family, so any "available for use" order-ranked name based on an included genus can be used. Everyone calls this order the Cantharellales.
@cooperj, has this been accepted at this point?