98 PP) but low in the ML analysis (35 % BS), and there is no significant support for the Cantharocybe—Ampulloclitocybe clade as basal to Cuphophyllus. Tucidinostat In a six-gene analysis by Binder et al. (2010), MLBS support for the Cantharocybe — Ampulloclitocybe clade is also below 50 %, as is the branch supporting Cuphophyllus (as Camarophyllus) and Cantharocybe, though there is 1.0 BPP support for the latter branch. Similarly, our ITS-LSU analysis and an analysis of the LSU region by Ovrebo et al. (2011) place Cantharocybe as sister to Cuphophyllus with less than 50 % MLBS support. Ovrebo et al.
(2011) show no significant support for Xeromphalina or Ampulloclitocybe as basal to the Cantharocybe– Cuphophyllus clade. Species included Type species: Cantharocybe gruberi. C. gruberi var. luteosaturatus (Malençon) Esteve-Rav., Reyes & Alvarado and C. brunneovelutina Lodge, Ovrebo & Aime are included based on morphological and phylogenetic data. Comments The regular to subregular lamellar context (Ovrebo et al. 2011, Fig. 7), forking and anastamosing lamellae, and presence of ornamented cheilocystidia set Cantharocybe apart from other genera in the cuphophylloid grade. As noted by Ovrebo et al. (2011), the type species of Cantharocybe has previously been placed variously in Clitocybe (Smith 1944), Laccaria (Singer 1951), and unplaced within the family Paxillaceae (Singer 1986), while Esteves-Raventós
et al. (2011) show that a European variety of the type species had this website been placed in Pleurotus. The placement of Cantharocybe Mephenoxalone relative to other genera remains unresolved and sampling of other gene regions and additional taxa, especially from the Australasian region, will be needed to resolve the branching order of clades with strong bootstrap support for these very deep branches. Excluded genera Several genera have been excluded from the Hygrophoraceae based on either morphological or molecular phylogenetic data. Camarophyllopsis Herink (1959; syn. Hygrotrama Singer 1959) had been included in Hygrophoraceae at various ranks, but was excluded from the family by phylogenetic analyses (Matheny et al.
2006). Kühner (1980) noted that Camarophyllopsis had a hymeniform pileipellis and that the basidia were relatively short for Hygrophoraceae, but other taxa see more confirmed by molecular phylogenies to belong in Hygrophoraceae also have short basidia (Lodge et al. 2006). The placement of Camarophyllopsis in Matheny et al. (2006) varies depending on whether Maximum Parsimony or Bayesian analysis methods are used. Matheny et al. (2006) show Camarophyllopsis in the Plicaturopsis clade at the base of the Agaricales, whereas the six-gene analysis by Binder et al. (2010) places it in the Clavariaceae, also at the base of the Agaricales. Singer described the monotypic genus Neohygrophorus to accommodate Hygrophorus angelesianus A.H. Sm. & Hesler (1963).