Full name: Hebeloma broadwayi Murrill (1912)
Published: Mycologia 4 (2): 82 (1912)
Taxonomic status: This is a Agrocybe.
Notes: Current name: Agrocybe broadwayi (Murrill) Dennis, Bull. trimest. Soc. mycol. Fr. 69(2): 179 (1953).

Types: GRENADA: Saint George Parish, Along roadside near Tempé Lowlands (approx. 12.0587°N, 61.7339°W, alt. approx. 70 m a.s.l.) in tropical woodland roadside, 1912, W.E. Broadway, det: W.A. Murrill (Holotype. herbarium acc. no. NY 814876, HJB1000288; Isotype. herbarium acc. no. WTU-F-039676, HJB1000329).

Diagnosis: Pileus fleshy, convex to expanded, 2-4 cm. broad; surface white, glabrous, subviscid, not striate; lamellae adnexed, crowded, rather narrow, white to ochraceous-fulvous, the edge white, crenulate; spores ochraceous-fulvous, ellipsoid, 12-14 X 7-μ; stipe cylindric, white, glabrous, hollow, 3-4 cm. long, 2-4 mm. thick.

Commentary: The spores (12–14 × 7–8 µm) are thick-walled with a clearly visible germ pore. Cheilocystidia and pleurocystidia are present, ventricose to clavate. The recombination into Agrocybe s.l. is further supported by an ITS sequence that was generated from the holotype, which clusters with other collections referred to Agrocybe that are not part of the Agrocybe s. str. clade. Agrocybe (excluding Cyclocybe) is currently considered to be a member of the Strophariaceae (Tian and Matheny 2020), but it was not shown as monophyletic in some recent reconstructions (Vizzini et al. 2014; Frings et al. 2020) and in various reconstruction attempts tested here with different sets of species and loci (results not shown). Sequence data suggests that the type of A. broadwayi may be conspecific with another collection from Florida, referred to A. retigera (FLAS:60923), see UNITE SH1612235.08FU. This species was described in Naucoria by Spegazzini (1923, preprint 1922 fide https://www.sil.si.edu/DigitalCollections/tl-2/index.cfm ) from Paraguay and was recombined into Agrocybe by Singer (1950). Comparative studies of both types are necessary to verify a possible synonymy. Niveiro et al. (2020) commented on both species and provided a key, however, their descriptions were all based on material from Argentina, thus not on types. A herbarium note (maybe from L.R. Hesler): “Singer, R. (1953) states that specimens collected by Dennis have all the characters of Agrocybe neocoprophila Sing., based on Hebeloma coprophilum Rick (non A. coprophila Sing., 1950). No sequence information exists under the name of A. neocoprophylla.