“Interestingly, our phylogeny indicated that the genera Neoboletus and Sutorius formed two different clades, both with high support (BS = 85% and PP = 0.95 for Neoboletus; BS = 100% and PP = 1 for Sutorius). Recently, Wu et al. (2016) synonymised Neoboletus with Sutorius because, in their phylogeny based on a four-gene dataset (28S+tef1+rpb1+rpb2), Boletus obscureumbrinus, a species morphologically more similar to Neoboletus than to Sutorius, seemed to cluster with Sutorius rather than with the Neoboletus species, although with neither ML nor BI support. Moreover, the Neoboletus clade was not supported either. Later, Chai et al.(2019) treated the two genera as different genetic lineages based on morphology and phylogeny (28S+ITS+tef1+rpb2), in which B.obscureumbrinus clustered with the other Neoboletus species in a well supported clade. Our phylogenetic analyses, based on a different set of genes (atp6+tef1+rpb2+cox3), confirm the separation of the two genera Neoboletus and Sutorius. The differences in gene trees obtained could be explained by a long-branch attraction artefact in datasets with different taxon and gene samplings and/or problems in the dataset (e.g. suboptimal alignment). Neoboletus obscureumbrinus is quite atypical amongst Neoboletus species and its phylogenetic affinities within this genus remain unclear (Fig. 7).”
- MycoKeys 54: 1–29 (2019)
""Here is the reason for the transfer of Neoboletus to Sutorius given by Wu et al. (2016):
“Sutorius was described in details by Halling et al. (2012). Not long after, the name Neoboletus Gelardi et al. (2014) was introduced for a clade closely related to it, which was labeled as ‘‘Clade 37’’ in Wu et al. (2014). The genus Neoboletus was temporarily accepted in an earlier paper by Wu et al. (2015). However, after incorporating additional species, this clade was collapsed into Sutorius, and the members of Neoboletus were not clustered within a highly-supported clade. Morphologically, the pileipellis structures of these two groups are similar to each other, both of which can be regarded as trichodermium; the stipe surface of those species are all covered with pruinose-furfuraceous squamules; and the surfaces of the hymenophores are all dark in color. Taken the above mentioned facts and the guidelines of Vellinga et al. (2015) into consideration, we decided to treat Neoboletus as a synonym of Sutorius here.”"
Personally, I have no objection to resurrecting Neoboletus on MO – in spite the cited rationale in Wu et al. 2016 paper, where it’s collapsed into Sutorius. The "rumor’ has it that if one keeps the intron in protein-coding loci when building phylogenetic trees, Neoboletus splits off and becomes an independent clade.
MO should follow general usage, and ‘Sutorius’ and ‘Neoboletus’ are both in use, including for the species here on MO! (That’s particularly the case when both clades are monophyletic and what classification is used is a matter of preference.) Mycobank is a good guide to accepted names, generally speaking. If the sinking of Neoboletus into Sutorius goes into more general use, by all means, change it here, but change both the genus and species!
See: Wu, G., Li, Y. C., Zhu, X. T., Zhao, K., Han, L. H., Cui, Y. Y., … & Yang, Z. L. (2016). One hundred noteworthy boletes from China. Fungal Diversity, 81(1), 25-188.