Name: Boletus L.
Most Confident Observations:
437560
Copyright © 2014 mushy
84247
Copyright © 2010 Ian Dodd Kundabung NSW Australia
620329
Copyright © 2016 othavio (warmaker)
55312
Copyright © 2009 Emily (EmilyWhiteley)
Version: 7
Previous Version 


First person to use this name on MO: Nathan Wilson
Editors: Administrator, I. G. Safonov, Timothy, Joe Cohen

Comments

Add Comment
Approved
By: Joe Cohen (Joseph D. Cohen)
2016-05-02 16:28:09 PDT (-0700)

See comments. This is still a valid name for a (narrow) genus, even it is had been misapplied and even if some people continue to misapply it.

Boletus still is a good name.
By: Joe Cohen (Joseph D. Cohen)
2016-05-02 16:25:48 PDT (-0700)

I realize that people have misapplied Boletus and likely will continue to do so.

But the name is still a valid name for a (narrow) genus and is not a synonym of the family.

Deprecated
By: I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
2016-05-02 16:19:38 PDT (-0700)

As it has been known for several years, the old genus Boletus is in the process of being broken up. In the strict sense, this genus should be limited only to porcini-type boletes, typified by the good old B. edulis. While there are still many species currently in Boletus that don’t really belong there, as they are clearly not “bolete royalty” as per the recent phylogenetic studies of the Boletacea, it may take many years to transfer them out of Boletus into the appropriate genera. The bottom line is that naming your unknown Boletus sp. as Boletus L. no longer makes any sense — hence the next best thing, the family level (Boletaceae). For any uncertain taxa in the porcini clade that evade identification, please use Boletus sensu stricto nom. prov. Dentinger.

edibility
By: Rakeem H. (RAH)
2014-07-27 06:23:01 PDT (-0700)

Will these mushrooms
happen to be edible?

Why wait on this question?
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2011-12-17 16:01:14 PST (-0800)

My point is that it seems presumptuous at this point to call anything Boletus sp. that isn’t pretty clearly in the same clade as Boletus edulis (the type according to MycoBank). My expectation for the molecular work is similar to Christian where Boletus will be essentially be restricted to the Procini. Of course there will probably be a few surprises, but if anything that would support the convention of using “Boletaceae sp.” rather than “Boletus sp.” until there is greater clarity.

Wait and see.
By: Dimitar Bojantchev (dimitar)
2011-12-16 09:54:16 PST (-0800)

There are a couple of key studies at the moment. Wait and see. It is going to be dynamic at least from the data that I can derive based on my own analysis of Boletaceae. That one on that picture above will probably not be Boletus s.s.

D.
Boletus sensu stricto…
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2011-12-15 09:58:30 PST (-0800)

In the future will likely only include the Porcini – those with stuffed pores when young. So, yeah, most things that aren’t big stately edibles are better called Boletaceae (I think).

What is the scope of Boletus as opposed to Boletaceae?
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2011-12-15 09:39:46 PST (-0800)

Recently (Dec. 2011), I’ve been working on figuring out what content can reasonably be shared with other sites (EOL specifically). In this case, it seems like the genus Boletus is being used as a bit of a catch all for organisms that are probably better described as Boletaceae. In the short term I’ve disabled exporting images that are identified just as “Boletus sp.”. My thought is that these should all be identified as “Boletaceae”.

Created: 2008-11-02 06:56:45 PST (-0800) by Nathan Wilson (nathan)
Last modified: 2017-07-07 15:15:30 PDT (-0700) by Joe Cohen (Joseph D. Cohen)
Viewed: 4387 times, last viewed: 2017-11-21 12:31:02 PST (-0800)
Show Log