Talk:Durianella

A fact from Durianella appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 May 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the fungus Durianella was so named for the resemblance of its fruit bodies to little durians?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Durianella.

Wikipedia

Fungi Low‑importance

	Fungi portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Malaysia Low‑importance

	Malaysia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Phylogeny[edit]

I have commented out the following statement that I cannot find supported by Nuhn ME, Binder M, Taylor AFS, Halling RE, Hibbett DS. (2013). "Phylogenetic overview of the Boletineae". Fungal Biology. doi:10.1016/j.funbio.2013.04.008. ISSN 1878-6146.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

"Based on nuclear large subunit rRNA, Durianella echinulata may be related to Retiboletus; however, the phylogeny lacks support for this placement and D. echinulata is found on a disproportionally long branch within a clade containing Retiboletus spp." I can't see Durianella discussed in the text, nor on either of the two cladograms given in the paper. What am I missing? I've also removed the assertion that this genus is placed in the Boletaceae, as that does not seem to be supported by Nuhn et al. 2013, and replaced it with Desjardin et al.'s placement in the Boletineae (familial placement not given). Sasata (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the sup. constrained phylogeny. I doubt it will be placed outside of the family. Although it has no support for where it is in the tree, the nodes that support the family and the node (maybe two nodes) immediately after the family are strongly supported. Around 94 and 95 if I recall correctly (ML RAxML analysis).M.E.Nuhn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]