Mycologia ISSN: 0027-5514 (Print) 1557-2536 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/umyc20 The protochecklist of North American nonlichenized Fungi Scott T. Bates, Andrew N. Miller & the Macrofungi Collections and Microfungi Collections Consortia To cite this article: Scott T. Bates, Andrew N. Miller & the Macrofungi Collections and Microfungi Collections Consortia (2018): The protochecklist of North American nonlichenized Fungi, Mycologia, DOI: 10.1080/00275514.2018.1515410 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00275514.2018.1515410 View supplementary material Published online: 28 Nov 2018. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 156 View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=umyc20 MYCOLOGIA https://doi.org/10.1080/00275514.2018.1515410 The protochecklist of North American nonlichenized Fungi Scott T. Bates a, Andrew N. Miller b, and the Macrofungi Collections and Microfungi Collections Consortia aDepartment of Biological Sciences, Purdue University Northwest, Westville, Indiana 46391; bIllinois Natural History Survey, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois 61820 ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Fungi are the second largest group of eukaryotic organisms on Earth, providing essential ecosys- Received 17 May 2018 tem services throughout the world. Although early attempts were made in the 20th century to Accepted 21 August 2018 document various components of the mycota of North America, no extensive list of taxonomic KEYWORDS names has ever been compiled for this region. This paper represents the first comprehensive Ascomycota; Basidiomycota; checklist for nonlichenized Fungi from North America, which is defined here as Canada, Mexico, database; natural history and the United States (and its territories), and is based on the efforts of 75 fungaria that deposited collections; taxonomy their data online in the Mycology Collections Portal (MyCoPortal). This protochecklist is compiled from nearly 2.2 million records and includes 44 488 fungal names based on the MycoBank taxonomic thesaurus, with differences discussed that reflect discrepancies from the estimate of 46 118 taxa derived from a second list based on the Index Fungorum thesaurus. Approximately 114 000 type specimens (i.e., holo-, iso-, lecto-, syntypes, etc.) representing more than 52 000 typified taxa occur in the MyCoPortal, and of these, ca. 53 000 type specimens representing more than 18 000 typified taxa are described from North America. Several known problems exist with this protochecklist, including orthographical errors, unresolved synonymies, and incomplete taxonomy. The result offers a list of taxonomic names for discussion and provides a foundation for future systematic and taxonomic revisions and the discovery of new records and novel taxa for the region. Furthermore, this protochecklist serves as a baseline for documenting fungal taxa in North America more effectively and comprehensively. INTRODUCTION the immense fungal diversity that occurs on Earth Fungi are ubiquitous, diverse organisms that provide (Hibbett et al. 2011). Although ca. 120 000 accepted essential ecosystem services throughout the world and fungal species are formally described (Hawksworth and include many important pathogens of plants and ani- Lücking 2017), this may represent as little as 1% of the mals (Van der Heijden et al. 1998; Arnold et al. 2000; projected diversity, and actual numbers and distribu- Lindahl et al. 2002; Blackwell et al. 2006; Fisher et al. tions remain unknown even for relatively well-studied 2012). Regional accounting of fungal species dates back areas such as North America. to the early 1600s in Europe (Clusius 1601), and studies Cataloging of North American fungi began in the late examining their diversity and biogeography throughout 1600s with the work of an Anglican priest, John Banister, the world continue to this day, often eliciting rigorous and reports from the continent continued throughout debate. Estimates of global fungal taxonomic diversity the 1700s (Rogers 1977). The foundation of formal range from 0.5 million to 10 million species depending mycological study in North America, however, is gener- on the extrapolation methods used (Hawksworth 1991; ally attributed to Lewis D. von Schweinitz, the “father of May 1991; Schmit et al. 1999; Mueller and Schmit 2007; American mycology” (Ainsworth 1976). Schweinitz pub- Blackwell 2011; Hawksworth and Lücking 2017). lished several works, including Synopsis Fungorum Access to new data on species and their distributions Carolinae Superioris (de Schweinitz 1822)andSynopsis plays an important role to inform and refine these Fungorum in America Boreali Media Digentium (de studies and continues to advance mycological docu- Schweinitz 1834), which resulted in the documentation mentation. More than 1200 new fungal species are of nearly 4500 North American species, with over 1500 described annually; however, it has been suggested of these newly described by Schweinitz alone (Shear and that centuries of work lie ahead for fungal taxonomists Stevens 1917). Since then, many 19th and 20th century before they can approach documenting the majority of mycologists advanced the documentation of fungal CONTACT Andrew N. Miller [email protected] Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s Web site. © 2018 The Mycological Society of America Published online 28 Nov 2018 2 BATES ET AL.: PROTOCHECKLIST OF NORTH AMERICAN FUNGI diversity within various areas of North America, with records from more than 300 different exsiccata sets efforts too vast to detail here. Two important examples (e.g., Ellis’ North American Fungi), and more than 114 from the United States, however, are useful for illustrat- 000 records of type specimens. With the MaCC and ing systematic approaches applied in the past. Charles H. MiCC projects completed, nearly all North American Peck worked as the New York State Botanist from 1867 fungal specimens housed in US fungaria have been to 1915 and published broadly on fungi from the region digitized, and the data available through the in a series of annual reports (1897–1912), personally MyCoPortal represent the most complete specimen- describing more than 2700 species (Gilbertson 1962; based assessment of fungal diversity for North Haines 1986). Job B. Ellis, conversely, was an indepen- America ever assembled. To facilitate future work in dent mycologist who dedicated his adult life to assem- more comprehensively documenting the region’s bling and distributing sets of dried fungal specimens in mycota, we present here a protochecklist (proto = pri- numbered series (exsiccati). His North American Fungi mitive or relating to a precursor, and checklist =a (1878–1898) was prominent among these, and he working list of all known taxa for an area) of North described over 4000 species of fungi (Stevenson 1971; American Fungi. Pfister 1985). In the late 1800s, Ellis was also involved in the publication of a compendium of North American MATERIALS AND METHODS pyrenomycetes (Ellis and Everhart 1892). By the early 1900s, fungi were included in volumes Data used to generate the protochecklist were mobi- of the North American Flora published by the New lized in the MyCoPortal online database from digitized York Botanical Garden, with William A. Murrill being voucher specimens housed in 75 public collections, an important contributor to these works (e.g., Murrill universities, and natural history museums throughout et al. 1907–1916, 1914–1932). Subsequent literature on North America. Fungal names in the MyCoPortal North American fungi tended to be of narrower scope, linked to observation-based sources (e.g., Mushroom for example, monographs of specific genera (e.g., Kern Observer, iNaturalist) were not included in the check- 1917; Smith 1947; Hesler and Smith 1963). Systematic list because those data are not consistently associated collections of fungi continued to be made as well for with voucher specimens and therefore cannot be scien- checklists of specific forays, states, provinces, or regions tifically validated. Data attribution is provided for the in North America (e.g., Lowy and Cooke 1965; Cooke following collections that contributed data for this pro- 1975, 1985; Petersen 1979), with specimens typically tochecklist; herbarium codes follow Index Herbariorum then deposited in institutional collections of fungi (Thiers [continuously updated]): ACAD, ARIZ, BISH, (viz., fungaria). BPI, BRU, CFMR, CHRB, CHSC, CINC, CLEMS, Recently, significant advances in digitizing a rich CMMF, CORT, CSU, CUP, DBG, DEWV, DUKE, F, heritage of natural history collections have been made FH, FLAS, FLD, FNL, FPF, GAM, HAW-F, HCOA, (e.g., Baird 2010; Beaman and Cellinese 2012; IBUG, ILL, ILLS, IND, ISC, KU-F, LSUM, MAINE, Blagoderov et al. 2012), thus facilitating broader access MICH, MIN, MISS, MNA, MONTU, MSC, MU, to data on organismal diversity, including fungi NBM, NCSLG, NCU, NEB, NY, NYS, OSC, PH, PUL, (Delgado and Koukol 2016; Thiers et al. 2016; Miller PUR, RMS, SFSU, SUCO, SYRF, TENN, TRTC, and Bates 2017). Digitization of fungaria in the United UACCC, UARK, UBC, UC, UCHT, UCSC, URV, States was achieved through the digitization of 1.25 USAM, USCH, USF, USU, UT, UWSP, VPI, VT, million records by the Macrofungi Collections WIS, WSP, and WTU. Consortium (MaCC) (Thiers and Halling 2018) and Data for this study, including the protochecklist of 2.25 million records