g., pink staining reaction and nitrous odor, as noted by Candusso, 1997) are ignored as it is the
characters that are present in a diagnosis that must match the selected lectotype and epitype. We have instead selected the lectotype and epitype based on the following characters that were included in the original diagnosis (Bull., Herb. selleck screening library Fr., 1793: 592) of A. ovinus Bull.: stipe swollen, stuffed, becoming hollow; pileus 2–6 cm diam., hemispherical, becoming umbonate, smooth to scaly, margin becoming fissured, brick colored to fuscous-cinereous; lamellae few, sublunate, uncinate, broad, venose, white at first, becoming cinerous. Porpoloma metapodium has a solid, non-compressed stipe and lamellae that are not veined. Mdivi1 Neohygrocybe sect. Neohygrocybe. [autonym] [≡ Neohygrocybe sect. “Ovinae” Herink (1959), nom. invalid and illeg.] Type species: Neohygrocybe ovina (Bull.: Fr.) Herink, Sb. Severocesk. Mus., Prír. Vedy 1: 72 (1959) [≡ Hygrocybe ovina
(Bull.: Fr.) Kühner, Le Botaniste 17: 43 (1926), ≡ Hygrophorus ovinus (Bull. : Fr.) Fr., Epicr. syst. mycol. (Upsaliae): 328 (1838) [1836–1838], ≡ Agaricus ovinus Bull., Herbier de la France 13: t. 580 Tideglusib (1793)]. Characters as in genus Neohygrocybe, some part of the flesh always bruising red, then fuscous; most with a distinctive nitrous, ammonia or fruity odor. Phylogenetic support Support for a monophyletic sect. Neohygrocybe is strong in our 4-gene backbone, LSU, Supermatrix and ITS-LSU analyses (99 %, 67 %, 87 % and 76 % MLBS, respectively). Support is moderate in our ITS analysis (61 %, Online Resource 3). Species included Type species: Neohygrocybe ovina. Additional species included based on molecular phylogenies and morphology are N. ingrata and N. subovina (Hesl. & A.H. Sm.) Lodge & Padamsee, comb. nov. (below). Neohygrocybe lawsonensis (A.M. Young) Lodge & Padamsee, comb. nov. (below) is included based on morphology. Comments This section contains most of the species known in
Neohygrocybe including the type, but it has previously been called Neohygrocybe sect. “Ovinae” Herink (nom. invalid), and Hygrocybe [unranked] Ovinae Bataille. Herink (1959) supplied a Latin diagnosis for the unranked group, Ovini Bataille (1910), but Herink failed to cite the basionym and its place of Org 27569 publication as required beginning in 1953 (nom. invalid, Art. 33.4). Regardless, sect. Ovinae is invalid because the section contains the type of the genus so the name has to repeat the genus name exactly (Art. 22.1), making sect. Neohygrocybe the correct name for this group. The combinations in Hygrocybe, sect. Neohygrocybe (Herink) Bon, and immediately below it, N. subsect. Neohygrocybe (Herink) Bon (1989), were both validly published making Hygrocybe sect. Neohygrocybe (Herink) Candusso (1997) superfluous, nom. illeg. (Candusso, 1997: 323, was also incorrect in stating the type species of the section was H. ingrata; see Art. 7.4). Neohygrocybe subovina (Hesl. & A. H. Sm.) Lodge & Padamsee, comb. nov.