Mycological Progress

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 227–234

Lactarius sanguifluus versus Lactarius vinosus — Molecular and morphological analyses

Article

Abstract

Lactarius vinosus is often considered as a variety of L. sanguifluus. Morphological (especially macroscopical characters and spore-ornamentation) and molecular arguments (based on ITS-sequencing) are given here to treat it as a separate species. Its relationship to closely related species of Lactarius section Deliciosi is discussed.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barla JB (1855) Tableau comparatif des champignons comestibles et vénéreux de Nice, Nice.Google Scholar
  2. Barla JB (1859) Les champignons de la province de Nice et principalement les espèces comestibles, suspectes ou vénéneuses, dessinés d’après nature, Nice.Google Scholar
  3. Basso MT (1999) Lactarius Pers. Fungi Europei, VIII, Mycoflora, Alassio.Google Scholar
  4. Bataille F (1908) Flore monographique des astérosporés. Lactaires et Russules. — Mémoires de la Société d’Émulation du Doubs, 8 sér., 2: 1–45.Google Scholar
  5. Bergendorff O, Sterner O (1988) The sesquiterpenes of Lactarius deliciosus and L. deterrimus. — Phytochemistry 27: 97–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blum J (1976) Les Lactaires. Etudes mycologiques 3, Paul Lechevalier, Paris.Google Scholar
  7. Bon M (1980) Clé monographique du genre Lactarius. — Documents Mycologiques 10: 1–85.Google Scholar
  8. Courtecuisse R, Duhem B (1994) Les champignons de France. Delachaux et Niestlé. Eclectis, Lausanne.Google Scholar
  9. Dähncke RM (1993) 1200 Pilze in Farbfotos. AT Verlag, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  10. Eberhardt U (2000) Moleculare Analysen zur Verwandtschaft der agaricoiden Russulaceen im Vergleich mit Mykorrhiza-und Fruchtkörpermerkmalen. Doctoral thesis, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  11. Ewing B, Green P (1998) Base-calling of automated sequencer traces using phred. II. Error probabilities. — Genome Research 8: 186–194.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Ewing B, Hillier L, Wendl MC, Green P (1998) Base-calling of automated sequencer traces using phred. I. Accuracy assessment. — Genome Research 8: 175–185.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gardes M, Bruns TD (1993) ITS primers with enhanced specificity for basidiomycetes — application to the identification of mycorrhizae and rusts. — Molecular Ecology 2: 113–118.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Heilmann-Clausen J, Verbeken A, Vesterholt J (1998) The genus Lactarius. Fungi of Northern Europe 2. Denmark.Google Scholar
  15. Kimura M (1981) Estimation of evolutionary distances between homologous nucleotide sequences. — Proceedings of the National Acadademy of Sciences of the USA 78: 454–458.Google Scholar
  16. Konrad P, Maublanc A (1952) Les Agaricales. Tome 2. Paul Lechevalier, Paris.Google Scholar
  17. Kornerup A, Wanscher JH (1962) Farver i Farver. Politikens Forlag, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  18. Kühner R, Romagnesi H (1953) Flore analytique des Champignons supérieurs. Masson, Paris.Google Scholar
  19. Kuyper TW, Van Vuure M (1985) Nomenclatural notes on Russula. — Persoonia 12: 447–455.Google Scholar
  20. Lalli G, Frizzi G, Pacioni G (2002) Biochemical systematics of some species of Lactarius section Dapetes. — Plant Biosystems 136: 115–122.Google Scholar
  21. Marchand A (1971) Champignons du Nord et du Midi 1. Les meilleurs comestibles et les principaux vénéreux. Perpignan.Google Scholar
  22. Marchand A (1980) Champignons du Nord et du Midi 6. Lactaires et pholiotes. Perpignan.Google Scholar
  23. Marxmüller H, Romagnesi H (1991) Lactarius sanguifluus (Paulet: Fr.) Fr. var. vinosus Quélet. — Bulletin de la Société Mycologique de France 107: Atlas pl. 262.Google Scholar
  24. Moser M, Jülich W (1996) Farbatlas der Basidiomyceten, IV, 14. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  25. Neuhoff W (1956) Die Milchlinge (Lactarii). In Die Pilze Mitteleuropas Bd. IIb. Julius Klinkhardt, Bad Heilbrunn Obb.Google Scholar
  26. Paulet JJ (1811) Traité des Champignons, Vol. 2, 9th ed.Google Scholar
  27. Posada D, Crandall KA (1998) MODELTEST: testing the model of DNA substitution. — Bioinformatics 14: 817–818.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Quélet L (1881) Quelques espèces critiques ou nouvelles de la flora mycologique de France. Compte rendu de l’Association Française pour l’Avancement des Sciences. — Congres de Reims 1880. 9: 661–675.Google Scholar
  29. Schmitt JA (1974) Chemotaxonomische, morphologische und pflanzensoziologische Studien an mitteleuropäischen Lactarius-Arten der Sektion Dapetes Fr. (Blutreizker). — Zeitschrift für Pilzkunde 39: 219–244.Google Scholar
  30. Swofford DL, Olsen GJ, Wadell PJ, Hillis DM (1996) Phylogenetic interference. In Hillis DM, Moritz C, Mable BK (eds) Molecular Systematics, pp. 407–514. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  31. Swofford DL (2002) PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (* and Other Methods). Version 4. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  32. Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ (1994) CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. — Nucleic Acids Research 22: 4373–4680.Google Scholar
  33. White TJ, Bruns T, Lee S, Taylor JW (1990) Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In Innis MA, Gelfand DH, Sninsky JJ, White TJ (eds) PCR Protocols: A Guide to Methods and Applications, pp. 315–322. Academic Press, Inc., New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© DGfM 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dpt. Biology, Group MycologyGhent Univ.GhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations