The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Molecular systematics and biological diversification of Boletales
Abstract
Historical patterns of morphological evolution and ecology in the Boletales are largely unresolved but appear to involve extensive convergence. We studied phylogenetic relationships of Boletales based on two datasets. The nuc-lsu dataset is broadly sampled and includes roughly 30% of the described species of Boletales and 51 outgroup taxa across the Hymenomycetes. The multigene dataset (nuc-ssu, nuc-lsu, 5.8S, mt-lsu, atp6) sampled 42 key species of Boletales in a framework of 14 representative Hymenomycetes. The Boletales are strongly supported as monophyletic in our analyses on both datasets with parsimony, maximum likelihood and Bayesian approaches. Six major lineages of Boletales that currently are recognized on subordinal level, Boletineae, Paxillineae, Sclerodermatineae, Suillineae, Tapinellineae, Coniophorineae, received varied support. The backbone of the Boletales was moderately resolved in the analyses with the nuc-lsu dataset, but support was strong for most major groups. Nevertheless, most brown-rot producing forms were placed as a paraphyletic grade at the base of the Boletales. Analyses on the multigene dataset confirm sister group relationships among Boletales, Agaricales and Atheliales. Boletineae and Suillineae received the highest support values; Paxillineae and Sclerodermatineae were not consistently resolved as monophyletic groups. The Coniophorineae were not monophyletic in any analyses. The Tapinellineae consisting of morphologically diverse brown-rotting fungi forms the basal group in the Boletales. We performed ancestral state reconstruction with BayesMultiState, which suggested that the ancestor of the Boletales was a resupinate or polyporoid saprotrophic fungus, producing a brown-rot.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A higher-level phylogenetic classification of the Fungi
Hibbett, D. S., Binder, M., Bischoff, J. F., Blackwell, M., Cannon, P. F., Eriksson, O. E., Huhndorf, S., James, T., Kirk, P. M., Lücking, R., et al. (2007) · Mycological Research · doi:10.1016/j.mycres.2007.03.004 · Cited by 2,390
Self-citationTedersoo, L., May, T. W., & Smith, M. E. (2010) · Mycorrhiza · doi:10.1007/s00572-009-0274-x · Cited by 1,016
Ectomycorrhizal fungi – potential organic matter decomposers, yet not saprotrophs
Lindahl, B. D., & Tunlid, A. (2015) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.13201 · Cited by 851
Fungal diversity notes 111–252—taxonomic and phylogenetic contributions to fungal taxa
Ariyawansa, H. A., Hyde, K. D., Jayasiri, S. C., Buyck, B., Chethana, K. W. T., Dai, D. Q., Dai, Y. C., Daranagama, D. A., Jayawardena, R. S., Lücking, R., et al. (2015) · Fungal Diversity · doi:10.1007/s13225-015-0346-5 · Cited by 751
Metadata
- Authors
- Binder, M., & Hibbett, D. S.
- Venue
- Mycologia
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2006-11
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 971-981
- ISSN
- 0027-5514 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-2536
- OpenAlex
- W2142189545
- Cited by
- 333
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Molecular systematics and biological diversification of Boletales. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/15572536.2006.11832626
- The paper
- Binder, M., & Hibbett, D. S. (2006). Molecular systematics and biological diversification of Boletales. Mycologia. https://doi.org/10.1080/15572536.2006.11832626
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.