The type species of H. pudorinus Fr. matches H. persicolor Ricek, but the name has been misapplied to H. abieticola. The North American taxon called H. ‘pudorinus’ appears in a sister clade to H. persicolor in our ITS analysis (Online Resource 9), so it is close to the original concept of H. pudorinus.

Both Arnolds (1990) and Candusso (1997) incorrectly assumed Bataille’s (1910) unranked name Pudorini was published at subsection rank, but https://www.selleckchem.com/products/selonsertib-gs-4997.html only Candusso (1997, p 112) provided sufficient information (a full and direct reference to Bataille) to inadvertently combine it in Hygrophorus as subsect. Pudorini (Bataille) Candusso. Candusso (1997) divided sect. Pudorini into subsects Aurei, “Erubescentes”, and Pudorini, with subsect. “Erubescentes” [invalid] largely corresponding to subsects. Selleckchem GSK2399872A Pudorini plus Clitocyboides. Bon (1990) attempted to resurrect a descriptive heading from Fries [unranked] Rubentes as a named section, but the name is invalid as Bon did not fully cite the basionym; further, the group is polyphyletic and thus not useful. Hygrophorus [subgen. Colorati sect. Pudorini ] subsect. Clitocyboides (Hesler & A.H. Sm.) E. Larss., stat. nov. MycoBank MB804112. Type species: Hygrophorus sordidus Peck, Torrey Bot. Club Bull. 25: 321 (1898) [= subsect. “Pallidi” A.H. Sm. & Hesler, Llyodia 2:32 (1939) invalid, Art. 36.1]. Basionym: Hygrophorus [sect. Hygrophorus subsect. Hygrophorus] series Clitocyboides Hesler & A.H. Sm., North

American Species of Hygrophorus: 309 (1963). Basidiomes robust, dry to subviscid, lightly pigmented; pileus white to pallid cream, or colored incarnate to orange ochre or vinaceous purple; lamellae adnate to decurrent, mostly crowded, white sometimes turning incarnate or spotted vinaceous purple with age; stipe dry, white

to pallid incarnate or with vinaceous purple spots. Phylogenetic support Subsect. Clitocyboides, represented by H. poetarum, CHIR-99021 mw H. russula and H. sordidus, is strongly supported as monophyletic by our ITS-LSU analysis (100 % ML BS). Subsect. Clitocyboides, represented by H. poetarum, H. russula, and H. aff. russula is strongly supported in our Supermatrix analysis and our ITS analysis by Ercole (Online Resource 3) (84 % and 100 % MLBS, respectively). Similarly, support for a monophyletic subsect. Clitocyboides (H. nemoreus, H. penarius, H. penarioides, H. poetarum, H. russula, and H. sordidus) is high in a four-gene analysis presented by Larsson (2010, unpublished data) (95 % MPBS). Our expanded ITS analysis of Hygrophorus (Online Resource 9) shows moderate support for a monophyletic subsect. Clitocyboides comprising H. nemoreus, H. penarius, H. penarioides, H. poëtarum, H. russula, H. aff. russula, and H. sordidus (55 % MLBS support), and H. purpurascens appears basal to the subsect. Clitocyboides clade (41 % MLBS) instead of being in the subsect. Pudorini clade. Species included Type species: H. sordidus. Hygrophorus nemoreus (Pers.) Fr., H. penarius Fr., H. penarioides Jacobsson & E. Larss., H.