File:Macrolepiota phylogenies.jpg

English: Phylogenetic inference methods aim to find the best phylogeny by maximizing the likelihood function with respect to the ability to predict the observed data (maximum likelihood) or by comparing posterior probabilities for the different possible phylogenies (Bayesian).

Both methods return a measure of confidence/support for the obtained phylogenetic tree and are an important tool in support of the taxonomic identification of fungi. Since the introduction in the 1990s of DNA barcoding for establishing species boundaries and new taxa among fungi, the fungal taxonomy has been and is still being revolutionised. Not only the number of new taxa has increased largely, but species relationships have also undergone profound modifications due to phylogenetic results. Species that were considered to belong to the same genus based on their phenotypic vicinity, were divided into multiple geni due to their molecular distances. On the other hand, specimens that were phenotypically diverse, sometimes did not show the same difference from a molecular point of view and therefore are now considered the same species. The latter case is shown for the two species Macrolepiota mastoidea (Fr.) Singer, Lilloa 22: 417 (1951) [1949] and Macrolepiota konradii (Huijsman ex P.D. Orton) M.M. Moser, in Gams, Kl. Krypt.-Fl., Edn 3 (Stuttgart) 2b/2: 185 (1967). The species were defined on the basis of morphological differences, where Macrolepiota mastoidea was easily recognised through its typical umbo, while Macrolepiota konradii tyically featured a flaking of the cuticle with a haloed star-shaped decoration. However, molecular analyses demonstrated that these were genetically the same species and since Macrolepiota mastoidea was defined first in 1951, Macrolepiota konradii is now a synonym of the former.

The best phylogenetic trees, obtained through Bayesian inference (upper tree) and Maximum Likehood (lower tree), both show that there is no clear support for a boundary between these two species. The Bayesian posterior probabilities (BPP) of 69% and 59% and Maximum Likelihood bootstraps (MLB) of 45% and 51%, are too low to distinguish between them. On the other hand, the sequences obtained from type specimens from Macrolepiota orientiexcoriata, Macrolepiota velosa and Macrolepiota cyanolamellata were clearly distinct from Macrolepiota mastoidea, konradii and each other with 100% BPP and 99% MLB.

English: Phylogenetic inference methods aim to find the best phylogeny by maximizing the likelihood function with respect to the ability to predict the observed data (maximum likelihood) or by comparing posterior probabilities for the different possible phylogenies (Bayesian). Both methods return a measure of confidence/support for the obtained phylogenetic tree and are an important tool in support of the taxonomic identification of fungi. Since the introduction in the 1990s of DNA barcoding for establishing species boundaries and new taxa among fungi, the fungal taxonomy has been and is still being revolutionised. Not only the number of new taxa has increased largely, but species relationships have also undergone profound modifications due to phylogenetic results. Species that were considered to belong to the same genus based on their phenotypic vicinity, were divided into multiple geni due to their molecular distances. On the other hand, specimens that were phenotypically diverse, sometimes did not show the same difference from a molecular point of view and therefore are now considered the same species. The latter case is shown for the two species Macrolepiota mastoidea (Fr.) Singer, Lilloa 22: 417 (1951) [1949] and Macrolepiota konradii (Huijsman ex P.D. Orton) M.M. Moser, in Gams, Kl. Krypt.-Fl., Edn 3 (Stuttgart) 2b/2: 185 (1967). The species were defined on the basis of morphological differences, where Macrolepiota mastoidea was easily recognised through its typical umbo, while Macrolepiota konradii tyically featured a flaking of the cuticle with a haloed star-shaped decoration. However, molecular analyses demonstrated that these were genetically the same species and since Macrolepiota mastoidea was defined first in 1951, Macrolepiota konradii is now a synonym of the former. The best phylogenetic trees, obtained through Bayesian inference (upper tree) and Maximum Likehood (lower tree), both show that there is no clear support for a boundary between these two species. The Bayesian posterior probabilities (BPP) of 69% and 59% and Maximum Likelihood bootstraps (MLB) of 45% and 51%, are too low to distinguish between them. On the other hand, the sequences obtained from type specimens from Macrolepiota orientiexcoriata, Macrolepiota velosa and Macrolepiota cyanolamellata were clearly distinct from Macrolepiota mastoidea, konradii and each other with 100% BPP and 99% MLB.