I guess I am over-reacting when I see an indication that a name has changed, in this case a duplicate name that is not related to its’ conventional use. thanks for the clarifications

is a true Boletochaete, but the basionym of it is BOLETUS BICOLOR Massee 1909 whereas the American Boletus bicolor which is a true Boletus has been described by Peck in 1872. That is the solution to the riddle. There are two totally independent species involved. I just say,
Oh those taxonomists! :)

Boletus bicolor it is.

sounds like we dodged another taxo-bullet!

Boletus bicolor it is. For now.

“Boletochaete Singer
Pileus velutinous, bay-colored. Tubes gray. Stipe brownish, nearly smooth. Flesh white, unchanging. Spore deposit cinnamon brown, spores ovoid, smooth, inamyloid. Pileipellis a palisade with conical terminal elements. Seta-like or pseudocystidia-like hymenial cystidia present. Clamp connections absent. Not well studied. Two species known from the Paleotropics (Africa, SE Asia).
Ectomycorrhizae not determined with certainty (possibly Caesalpinoid Leguminosae and/or Dipterocarpaceae).”

This is not our bicolor…

that contains just three species and was erected by Singer in 1944. Species are from Africa and Southeast Asia. The fungi contain setae, hence Boleto**chaete** as in Hymenochaete.
New to me that the well-known temperate Boletus bicolor from North America should belong here!

have mercy!

what distinguishes a Boletochaete??!

where it states the preferred synonym

looks like Boletus bicolor or one of its lookalikes.