Changing scientific names of decay fungi--- PNW

SouthSoundTree-

TreeHouser
Joined
Sep 24, 2014
Messages
4,941
For whatever its worth to anybody...http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2010/nrs_2010_glaeser_002.pdf

Recent Change in the Nomenclature of Phellinus pini: What is Porodaedalea?
Jessie A. Glaeser and Karen K. Nakasone
U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station
One Gifford Pinchot Dr., Madison, WI  53726
jglaeser@fs.fed.us; 608‐231‐9215
The white‐rot genus Phellinus contains many important forest pathogens and saprotrophs,
including those that produce heartrot, saprot, and root‐rot or butt‐rot.  One of the most
notorious species is Phellinus pini, the causal agent of “red ring decay” or “white fleck,” which
primarily affects older stands of conifers, including Douglas fir, larch, pine and spruce. The
fungus produces a white pocket rot, creating wood that is highly desirable for paneling and
other wood crafts but otherwise low in value due to strength loss during advanced decay
(Tainter and Baker, 1996).  Phellinus pini initially infects through branch stubs and spreads into
extractive‐rich heartwood.  The pathogen is also able to attack and spread in killed sapwood.  
Decay may continue shortly after death of the host but the fungus is not an important
saprotroph of slash (Tainter and Baker, 1996).  Trees may be subject to breakage at the points
of decay (Dunster, 1996), so the presence of P. pini conks, especially if large and in high
numbers, is an important criterion in hazard assessment protocols (Bakken, 1995; Dunster,
1996; Toupin et al., 2008).
Since the 19th Century, researchers have worked to define individual species of fungi and
arrange those species in groupings (or taxa) based on similar aspects of gross physical
appearance and habit.  With the development of the concept of evolution by natural selection,
mycologists attempted to form natural groupings that reflect evolutionary pathways while still
being based on simple, visible characteristics.  Through the 20th Century, microscopic and
chemical features were added to further refine and in many cases segregate or split off taxa.  As
more was learned about differences and similarities in fungi, taxonomy moved into
biosystematics, the delineation of taxa at all levels (e.g., species, genera, families) into
monophyletic groups ‐ groups that have a single ancestral lineage.   
The names of fungal taxa have also reflected concepts of what makes two fungi similar or
different. With the advent of molecular analytical tools in the 1990s that more directly assess
ancestral relatedness, the status of many fungal groups, including the genus Phellinus, has been
radically revised. This has led to confusion by plant pathologists who frequently encounter
forest fungi and their effects.  The confusion can also be shared by researchers who are
developing the underlying concepts of relatedness.
What is the current name of a particular fungus?  Why do the names keep changing?
Classification systems based strictly on morphology and physiology are often misleading
because of convergent evolution. Thus morphological or physiological features, such as the
structure of the hymenium (pores, gills, teeth or a flat surface) or decay mechanism (white-rot
versus brown-rot) have evolved independently. The Latin binomal of a fungus can provide much 47
information about the fungus, giving an instant “genealogy” to one familiar with current
classification systems. The genus identifies a closely related group of species, as compared to
those in a different genus, and can give one insight into physiologies, decay mechanisms, and
disease-inducing potential shared by species in the genus (Glaeser and Lindner, in press.).
The genus Phellinus has traditionally been used to describe brown, poroid, white‐rot fungi that
produce perennial fruiting bodies with a dimitic hyphal system of skeletal and simple‐septate
generative hyphae.  Many species form hymenial or tramal setae or setal hyphae that darken in
KOH (Gilbertson and Ryvarden, 1987).  It is a large, cosmopolitan genus with host specific
species, such as Phellinus robineae on black locust, and nonspecific saprotrophs, such as
Phellinus gilvus (Larsen and Cobb‐Poulle, 1990).  The genus Phellinus was erected in 1886 by
Quélet (1886).  Murrill (1907) split Phellinus into several smaller, restricted genera, most of
which were largely ignored for the next 77 years.  In 1984, Fiasson and Niemela (1984)
reassessed the European species of Phellinus using a combination of conventional
morphological criteria, numerical taximetric analyses, chemotaxonomy, protein
electrophoresis, nuclear condition and cultural studies.  They reintroduced five of Murrill’s
generic names and created two new genera.  Gilbertson and Ryvarden (1987) were aware of
this revision but elected to retain Phellinus as a single genus in their landmark work, “Polypores
in North America” (Gilbertson and Ryvarden, 1986; 1987).
Phellinus is placed in the Order Hymenochaetales (Oberwinkler, 1977) and the Family
Hymenochaetaceae (Donk, 1964) along with its close relative Inonotus, a white‐rot genus that
produces annual, monomitic fruiting bodies (Gilbertson and Ryvarden, 1987).  Analyses of DNA
sequences confirmed the placement of Phellinus and Inonotus in the Hymenochaetales (Wagner
and Fischer 2001; Larsson et al., 2006). Additional polyporoid, toothed, agaric and corticioid
fungi, including Trichaptum, Oxyporus, and Hyphodontia, are also member of this order (Kim
and Jung, 2000; Hibbett and Thorn, 2001; Larsson et al., 2006; Redhead et al, 2002). To date,
the Hymenochaetales is defined only by molecular analysis and does not have a single unifying
morphological feature, although the ultrastructure of the septum may be an ancestral state
(Larsson et al., 2006).
Molecular phylogenetic analyses demonstrate that Phellinus is not a monophyletic group. This
revelation was not surprising given the large distribution and myriad forms of the genus.
Wagner and Fischer (2001; 2002) analyzed the nuclear encoded large subunit ribosomal DNA
(LSU rDNA) and found support for Fiasson and Niemela’s 1984 division of Phellinus and
Inonotus into a number of smaller genera based on morphological and chemical characteristics.
The eleven genera recognized were: Phellinus sensu stricto (i.e.“in a narrow sense;” s.str.),
Inonotus s.str., Inocutis, Fomitiporella, Aurificaria, Phylloporia, Fulviformes, Mensularia,
Pseudoinonotus, Fomitiporia, Porodaedalea, Onnia, Fuscoporia, and Inonotopsis. Subsequent
molecular studies supported these results but called for a revision of Onnia, Phellinidium and
Pseudoinonotus (Larsson et al., 2006). The systematics of Phellinus and Inonotus and allied taxa
are still in state of flux. Proposed combinations that are of interest to forest pathologists include:
Porodaedalea pini (syn. Phellinus pini), Porodaedalea chrysoloma (syn. Phellinus chrysoloma),
Porodaedalea cancriformans (syn. Phellinus cancriformans), Onnia tomentosa (syn. Inonotus 48
tomentosus), Phellinidium sulphurascens (syn. Phellinus sulphurascens), Phellinidium weirii
(syn. Phellinus weirii), Fulviformes robiniae (syn. Phellinus robiniae), and Pseudoinonotus
dryadeus (syn. Inonotus dryadeus). Jin et al (2005) detected 13 different evolutionary lineages
and several unresolved species within Phellinus and the related genera of Inonotus,
Hymenochaete, and Onnia using a combination of ITS and mitochondrial small subunit
ribosomal DNA (mt-ssu-rDNA). These lineages were divided into two major groupings that
correlated with nuclear condition, i.e. binucleate versus oligonucleate. The Hymenochaetales, or
hymenochaetoid clade, is obviously quite complex and needs more work to be fully resolved.
The fungus that has been known to us as Phellinus pini has had many names. It was first named
Boletus pini by Thore in 1803 and was subsequently placed in the genera Daedalea, Polyporus,
Trametes, Fomes, Ochroporus, Xanthochrous, Porodaedalea, Fomes, Inonotus, and
Cryptoderma (Larsen and Cobb‐Poulle, 1990).  Phellinus pini was erected in 1941 by Bondartsev
and Singer (Bondartsev and Singer, 1941), although many foresters learned about Fomes pini
well into the 1970s.  The epithet Porodaedalea pini was first published by Murrill in 1905
(Murrill, 1905) and is the nomenclatural type of the genus.
The test of any taxonomic change is whether other mycologists and plant pathologists will accept
it and start to use the new epithets. This can sometimes take years to resolve. Changing the
name of well known fungal pathogens is always difficult, as was shown in the renaming of the
chestnut blight fungus in the 1980s (Anagnostakis, 1987) and the breakup of Armillaria mellea
into different species in the 1990s (Burdsall and Volk, 1993). In the era of molecularly based
phylogenetics, we are able to trace evolution as never before. Most fungal groups are being
reevaluated and reassessed. In the end, we will know much more about relationships within the
fungal world and gain better understandings of fungal physiology and pathology. A better
understanding of relationships among fungi has the potential to improve the practice of forest
pathology.

Literature Cited
Anagnostakis, S.L. 1987. Chestnut blight: The classical problem of an introduced pathogen.  
Mycologia, Vol. 79: 23‐37
Bakken, S.R. 1995. Group-tree hazard analysis. J. Arbor. 21: 150-155.
Bondartsev , A.S and Singer, R. 1941. Atlas Champ. l’ Europe (Praha) 3: 517.
Burdsall, H.H. Jr. and Volk, T. 1993. The state of taxonomy of the genus Armillaria. McIlvanea
11:4-12.
Donk, M.A. 1964. A conspectus of the families of Aphyllophorales. Persoonia 3: 199-324.
Dunster, J.A. 1996. Hazard tree assessments: developing a species profile for western hemlock.
J. Arbor. 22: 51-57. 49
Fiasson, J.L. and Niemelä, T. 1984. The Hymenochaetales: a revision of the European poroid
taxa. Karstenia 24, 14-28.
Gilberson, R.L. and Ryvarden, L. 1987. North American Polypores. Vol. 2. Oslo: Fungiflora.
437-885.
Gilbertson, R.L. and Ryvarden, L., 1986: North American Polypores. Vol. 1. Oslo: Fungiflora. 1-
433.
Glaeser, J.A. and Lindner, D.L. 2010. Use of fungal biosystematics and molecular genetics in
detection and identification of wood decay fungi for improved forest management. Forest
Pathology (in press).
Hibbett, D.S. and Thorn, R.G. 2001. Homobasidiomycetes. In: The Mycota. Vol. VII. Part B.,
Systematics and Evolution. Ed. By McLaughlin, D.J.; McLaughlin, E.J.; Lemke, P. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag pp. 121-168.
Jin, J.W., Lim, Y.W., Lee, J.S., and Jung, H.S. 2005. Phylogeny of Phellinus and related genera
inferred from combined data of ITS and mitochondrial SSU rDNA sequences. J. Microbiol.
Biotechnol. 15, 1028-1038.
Kim, S.Y. and Jung, H.S. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships of the Aphyllophorales inferred from
sequence analysis of nuclear small subunit ribosomal DNA. J. Microbiol. 38, 122-131.
Kirk, P.M., Cannon, P.F., Minter, D.W. and Stalpers, J.A. 2008. Dictionary of the Fungi, 10th
Edition. Oxon, UK: CABI – Europe. 771 pp.
Larsson, K., Parmasto, E., Fisher, M., Langer, E., Nakasone, K.K., and Redhead, S.A., 2006:
Hymenochaetales: a molecular phylogeny for the hymenochaetoid clade. Mycologia 98, 926-
936.
Murrill, W.A. 1907. (Agaricales) Polyporaceae. North American Flora 9: 1-72.
Murrill, W.A. 1905. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 32: 367.  
Oberwinkler, F. 1977. Das neue System der Basidiomyceten.  In: Frey, W., Hurka, H.,
Oberwinkler, F. [Eds.]. Beiträge zur Biologie der niederen Pflanzen. New York: Gustav Fischer
Verlag. P 59‐104.
Quélet, L. 1886. Enchiridion fungorum in Europa media et praesertim in Gallia Vigentium.
Lutetiae, 352 pp.edhead, S. , Moncalvo, J.M., Vilgalys, R., and Lutzoni, F. 2002. Phylogeny of
agarics: partial systematics solutions for bryophilous omphalinoid agarics outside of the
Agaricales (Euagarics). Mycotaxon 82: 151-168.
Tainter, F.H.; Baker, F.A., 1996: Principles of Forest Pathology. New York: John Wiley and
Sons. 805 pp.
Thore, J. 1803. Essai d’une Chloris du Départment des Landes. Dax (Seize), 487. 50
Tomsovsky, M., Sedlak, P., and Jankovsky, L. 2009. Species recognition and phylogenetic
relationships of European Porodaedalea (Basidiomycota, Hymenochaetales).
Toupin, R., Filip, G., Erkert, T., Barger, M. 2008. Field Guide for Danger Tree Identification and
Response. R6-NR-FP-PR-01-08. Washington, DC: U.S. Forest Service.
Wagner, T.; and Fisher, M. 2001. Natural groups and a revised system for the European poroid
Hymenochaetales (Basidiomycota) supported by nLSU rDNA sequence data. Mycological
Research 105, 773-782.
Wagner, T. and Fischer, M. 2002. Proceedings towards a natural classification of the worldwide
taxa Phellinus s.l. and Inonotus s.l., and phylogenetic relationships of allied genera. Mycologia
94, 998-1016.
Decay from Phellinus pini:
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
I think USFS publications are at least a start.

I've banged over a bunch of pini infected doug-fir, but not climbed them. There is one at D's preschool that will be going away soon. I was wondering about if it needed to be climbed or not. It looks pretty solid, but has about 12 obvious conks on one side, and its upwind of the preschool. I was just searching around a bit and came across this, sparked in part by Reg's pini trees at the park.



I think that laminated root rot's causal organism's name may have changed again, too.
 
To mitigate, either remove the tree or eliminate people around it?? What about pruning?

o and Gerry, I agree, so I use common names to stay sane.
 
Back
Top