Fomes weberianus, 50 years of taxonomic confusion: lectotypification and taxonomic notes

Cony Decock,Milay Cabarroi-Hernández,Laura Guzmán-Dávalos,Paul M. Kirk,José Ángel García-Beltrán,Mario Amalfi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43008-024-00148-7

2024-06-25

IMA Fungus

Abstract:Fomes weberianus Bres. & Henn. ex Sacc. is currently the basionym of two very distinct polypores ( Basidiomycota ), Ganoderma weberianum ( Polyporales ) and Phylloporia weberiana ( Hymenochaetales ). This fact has led to almost fifty years of taxonomic confusion. Fomes weberianus was first lectotypified by Steyaert, who accepted the species as G. weberianum . However, studies of Weber's original material in B, duplicate material in S, the protologue, and early interpretations of the name have shown that Steyaert's choice conflicts with the protologue and early interpretations, and that his interpretation as a species of Ganoderma is erroneous. A new lectotype was designated and the species was re-described under the correct interpretation Phylloporia weberiana .

mycology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

This paper mainly addresses the problem of taxonomic confusion regarding the fungal species "Fomes weberianus". Since its description in 1891, this species has been mistakenly classified into two different poroid fungi genera (Basidiomycota) - Ganoderma weberianum and Phylloporia weberiana. Steyaert classified Fomes weberianus as Ganoderma weberianum in 1972, but subsequent research found that this classification does not match the original description. The authors of the paper re-examined Weber's original material and pointed out the conflict between Steyaert's choice and Saccardo's original diagnosis, suggesting that Fomes weberianus should belong to the genus Phylloporia.

In the paper, the authors designated a new lectotype - B 700021870, to correct the previous classification error and re-described Phylloporia weberiana. They also discussed the different interpretations and classifications of Fomes weberianus throughout history, including considering it as a synonym of other species. Through the analysis of the original material, the authors determined the correct classification and proposed that the previous type designation by Steyaert is not applicable, thereby eliminating the taxonomic confusion that persisted for nearly 50 years.