miniata in ITS analyses by us and Dentinger et al. (unpublished). ITS analyses (ours and Dentinger et al., unpublished data) place H. splendidissima as sister to H. punicea with strong support, but the morphological characters fit subsect. Siccae and not Coccineae. Our molecular selleck inhibitor phylogenies show H. aurantia belongs in Cuphophyllus. Hygrocybe [subg. Pseudohygrocybe sect. Coccineae ] subsect. Squamulosae (Bataille) Singer, Lilloa 22: 152 (1951) [1949] [≡ Hygrocybe subsect. Turundae (Herink) Bon, Doc. Mycol. 19(75): CHIR98014 56 (1989), superfluous, nom. illeg.]. Type species: Hygrocybe turunda (Fr.) P. Karst., Bidr. Känn. Finl. Nat. Folk 32: 235 (1879) ≡ Hygrophorus turundus (Fr.:

Fr.) Fr., Epicr. syst. mycol. (Upsaliae): 330 (1838), ≡ Agaricus turundus Fr., Observationes mycologicae 2: 199 (1818). Pileus subglobose at first, depressed in center, often deeply depressed or infundibuliform at maturity; surface dry, squamulose or minutely Adriamycin cost tomentose; stipe dry and smooth. Lamellae often arcuate-decurrent.

Pileipellis a trichoderm at the center, of broad hyphae (6–8–25 μm wide), typically with subglobose to ovoid elements in the hypoderm. Basidiospores relatively broad, Q 1.2–1.7 (−1.8); mean ratio of basidia to basidiospore length >5, constricted or not. Phylogenetic support The core of subsect. Squamulosae is strongly supported as a monophyletic clade in our Supermatrix, full LSU, Hygrocybe LSU and ITS analyses (100 %, 99 %, 97 % and 84 % MLBS, respectively). The Squamulosae clade in our Supermatrix analysis comprises H. caespitosa, H. cantharellus and H. melleofusca. Support for this branch falls below 50 % in our ITS-LSU ML analysis. Babos et al. (2011), show 98 % BS support for the clade comprising H. turundus and H. lepida (as H. cantharellus; see Arnolds 1986b), while Dentinger et al. (unpublished data) show 100 % MLBS support for

the clade comprising H. cantharellus s.s., H. lepida (as H. cantharellus), H. caespitosa, H. coccineocrenata, H. melleofusca and H. turunda using ITS alone. The ITS analsysis by Babos et al. (2011) shows moderately high support for including H. quieta in this clade (74 %), but the analysis by Dentinger et al. (unpublished) does not support inclusion of H. quieta in subsect. Squamulosae. In our ITS analysis, the subsect. Squamulosae clade comprises why H. caespitosa, H. cantharellus, H. lepida, H. melleofusca, H. papillata and H. turunda with 84 % MLBS support, but H. quieta appears on a long branch in a separate clade. Although H. miniata is traditionally treated in subsect. Squamulosae, which is consistent with the micromorphology and an ITS analysis by Babos et al. (2011) that places H. miniata in a sister clade to subsect. Squamulosae s.s. (78 % MLBS). Our ITS analysis (Online Resource 8) places the clade containing H. miniata and H. phaeococcinea near sect. Firmae, and the ITS analysis by Dentinger et al. shows strong support (93 % MLBS) for sect. Firmae as sister to the H. miniata—H.