Full name: Hebeloma fastibile (Pers.) P. Kumm. (1871) nom. rej.
Published: Der Führer in die Pilzkunde: 80 (1871)
Taxonomic status: Heterotypic synonym of H. laterinum
Notes: In Beker et al. (2013a) it was proposed that the genus Hebeloma be conserved with type H. mesophaeum, replacing H. fasitibile. In Beker et al (2013b) it was proposed that the name H. laterinum be conserved against the sanctioned name H. fastibile. Both these proposals were recommended in May (2015) and ratified in Wilson (2017).

Basionym: Agaricus fastibilis Pers. (1801): Fr. (1821)

Types: Batsch, Elench. Fung. 2: 80 (1789) Pl. 33, Fig. 195, lectotype (icon) designated by Beker et al., Taxon 62 (5): (2013) page 191

Herb. Persoon L 910.258-593 (Database Record 1000014) was proposed as lectotype by Singer (1961), but it is not verifiable as original material so is not a candidate for lectotypification.

Homotypic synonyms: Roumeguerites fastibilis (Pers.) P. Karst. (1882) ["1883"]; Inocybe fastibilis (Pers.) P. Karst. (1879); Hylophila fastibilis (Pers.) Quél. (1886); Picromyces fastibilis (Pers.) Earle (1909)

Original diagnosis: Caespitosus, pileo carnoso lateritio-rufo aut pallido opaco flexuoso, lamellis aquose cinnamomeis, stipites crasso fibrilloso albido. Agaricus lateritius Batsch El. Fung. fig. Hab. Frequens in sylvis tam abietinis quam fagineis. Obs. Quoad colorem, praesertim vero magnitudinem mire variat; cfr. Bulliard, herb. T. 546. Omnes varietates vero sapore ingrate, nauseoso et stipites albo fibrillose floccoso congruunt.

English translation: Tufted, with a fleshy dark brick red brown or pale, dull, flexuous pileus, with the lamellae watery pale brownish, with a thick, fibrous, whitish stipe. Agaricus lateritius, Batsch, El. Fung. Habitat common in both pine and beech forests. Obs. It varies remarkably in colour, and especially indeed in size; compare Bulliard, herb. T. 546. All varieties agree by the really unpleasant sickening odour and the white, fibrous, floccose stipe.

Commentary: Persoon clearly had a broad view of this taxon, comparing plates of H. laterinum and H. crustuliniforme. We have examined the Singer “lectotypes” of Agaricus fastibilis and A. mesophaeus and they are conspecifc. Problems have arisen, because H. fastibile was the type species of the generic name Hebeloma and yet had been variously interpreted by different authors ever since its original designation. As discussed in detail in two papers by Beker et al. (2013a, 2013b), a conservation of the generic name Hebeloma was proposed with Hebeloma mesophaeum as type species. It was also proposed that the name H. laterinum be conserved against the sanctioned name H. fastibile (Beker et al. 2013b). Kuyper and Vesterholt (1990) proposed the lectotypifcation of Agaricus fastibilis, the sanctioned basionym of Hebeloma fastibile (Pers.) P. Kumm., with the plate of Agaricus laterinus Batsch. In the frst of two articles (Beker et al. 2013a), we proposed that H. mesophaeum replace H. fastibile as the type of the genus in order to preserve the generally accepted sectional names within Hebeloma. This was needed, because a problem arises as the name H. laterinum has been treated as applying to a species of H. sect. Scabrispora, and not of H. sect. Hebeloma, typifed by H. fastibile. Hebeloma sect. Hebeloma, to which H. mesophaeum also belongs, is well-established as the name of the section, containing species with a clearly present cortina, a woolly universal veil, the stipe never rooting, a raphanoid smell, spores ellipsoid or amygdaloid, indextrinoid or dextrinoid, and lageniform or ventricose cheilocystidia. In contrast, H. sect. Scabrispora (albeit previously as a subsection) is well-established for species with a universal veil conspicuous or only visible in primordial stages, stipe ofen clearly rooting, smell rarely raphanoid, spores amygdaloid to inequilateral or cylindrical, dextrinoid, sometimes strongly, and cheilocystidia cylindrical to irregular, mostly short. Application of Art. 22.1 would therefore mean that H. sect. Scabrispora would have to be re-named H. sect. Hebeloma, and a new name coined for the former H. sect. Hebeloma. The interpretation of Hebeloma fastibile has caused much confusion. Persoon (1801) placed A. fastibilis under Agaricus sect. Gymnopus Pers., which indicates that he originally considered it to be a non-veiled species, or at least closely related to species exhibiting a nearly naked stipe. Even then Persoon’s concept was very broad and he listed a number of infraspecifc taxa of varying size and colour. His concept could well include nearly any non-veiled or lightly veiled Hebeloma species. Persoon listed “Agaricus lateritius [sic]”, i.e., Agaricus laterinus Batsch, as a synonym via reference to Batsch’s plate XXXIII, fg. 195 and he also considered Agaricus crustuliniformis Bull. to be one of a number of varieties. Were it not for the sanctioned status accorded to Fries’s treatment in Systema Mycologicum, the name A. fastibilis would be a superfuous later name and so, under Art. 52.1, illegitimate when published, and automatically typifed by the type of A. laterinus (Art. 7.5). Fries (1821) also had a broad concept of A. fastibilis in the sanctioning treatment, but he emphasized the presence of a marginal veil, rather than a nearly naked stipe. This was in contrast to Persoon’s protologue, and an alternative application of the name A. fastibilis could be considered for adoption under Art. 9.10, which permits the typifcation of sanctioned names by elements in the sanctioning protologue as an alternative to those in the protologue of the name-bringing epithet. We did not, however, follow that route as the application of the epithet has been a cause of confusion which we would not wish to exacerbate. Singer (1961) proposed as a “lectotype” for Agaricus fastibilis, L No. 910.258-593 in Persoon’s herbarium in Leiden. This undated collection bears the remark “A. fastibilis P. (cum cortina)” in Persoon’s handwriting. As it has a cortina, it is more likely that it represented Persoon’s later broad species concept, when he also included veiled morphs, and, therefore, does not represent original material. Descriptions of the collection were given both by Singer (1961) and Quadraccia (1987), who also presented photographs of marginal cystidia and spores. Two of us have also studied L 910.258-593, and concluded that it was conspecifc with H. mesophaeum as understood by recent authors. We have also studied a second collection (L 910.258-591) also marked A. fastibilis by Persoon. That collection has been examined independently by two of us, and found to represent a different species, most likely H. lutense Romagn., and belonging to a third section of Hebeloma, sect. Denudata (Fr.) Sacc. Although, there have been other interpretations of H. fastibile, the most common use of the name has been in the sense of Lange (1938a), Kühner & Romagnesi (1953), Bruchet (1970) and Moser (1983). In this concept, H. fastibile is a fairly large, pale, cortinate Hebeloma species that ofen grows in fascicles. This interpretation is based on Fries’s revised concept of A. fastibilis (1838). Quadraccia (1987) discussed in detail the many different interpretations of this taxon that ranged across a variety of sections of Hebeloma. Quadraccia concluded by providing an extensive description of the taxon he called “Hebeloma fastibile (Pers.:Fr.) P. Kumm. s. str. Quad.” and which he synonymized with H. sordidum Maire. Hebeloma sordidum (synonymized in this monograph with H. subtortum) is, however, widely distributed in the Mediterranean area, but rather rare in Northern Europe, and hence unlikely to have been seen by Fries in Sweden. Kuyper and Vesterholt rejected Singer’s typifcation. They considered it problematic, first because it appeared to be in confict with Persoon’s original description of A. fastibilis (Art. 9.19 (b)), and second, the specimen could not be dated and was not verifiable as original material (Art. 9.12). Instead, they proposed Batsch’s figure 195 [Fig. 66.4 (colour)], which not only is original material, but is also cited in the sanctioning work, as lectotype of both A. laterinus and A. fastibilis. At that time, no attempt was made to make a more precise interpretation of the plate. Vesterholt (2004) reconsidered the typifcation of Agaricus fastibilis, and argued that Batsch’s figure 195 represented the species often known as H. edurum Métrod ex Bon and also as H. senescens Berk. & Broome, treated as a nom. nov. for Agaricus senescens Batsch (non Agaricus senescens Willd., Fl. Berol. Prodr.: 376 (1787)). Since the publication of Vesterholt’s treatment of the genus in 2005, this interpretation has been widely accepted, for example by Buczacki et al. (2012) and Knudsen & Vesterholt (2012), and in Species Fungorum (www.speciesfungorum.org) with H. laterinum accepted and H. senescens and H. edurum treated as synonyms. Despite the publication of the proposed lectotype for H. fastibile and the synonymy described above in 2004, to the best of our knowledge, not a single publication has used the name Hebeloma fastibile for this taxon. Consequently, now to adopt the name H. fastibile for this taxon would mean another change to the name of a well-known species in a relatively short time and while H. laterinum is gaining wide acceptance. That is especially so as the name H. fastibile has already been variously interpreted by different authors and this would add to unnecessary instability and doubt as to what was intended by that name. We consequently proposed that the name Hebeloma laterinum be conserved over H. fastibile. The proposal has now been accepted by the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi (May 2015) and was endorsement by the General Committee in Wilson (2017). Hence, this taxon is: = Hebeloma laterinum (Batsch) Vesterh.

Full name: Hebeloma fastibile f. ammophila Bon (1970)
Published: Bulletin trimestriel de la Société Mycologique de France 86 (1): 133 (1970)
Taxonomic status: Is basionym of H. psammophilum
Is basionym of: Hebeloma psammophilum Bon (1986); Hebeloma ammophilum (Bon) Bon (1979); Hebeloma psammophilum Bon (1980) [“1979”]

Types: FRANCE: Somme, Le Crotoy (approx. 50.2167°N, 1.6258°E, alt. approx. 0 m a.s.l.) on sandy soil in dune under Salix repens, 10 Nov. 1969, M. Bon (90832) (Holotype. held at herbarium LIP, HJB1000026).

Commentary: See Hebeloma psammophilum Bon.

Full name: Hebeloma fastibile var. alba (Fr.) Sacc. (1887)
Published: Syll. Fung. 5: 792 (1887)
Taxonomic status: This is a Hebeloma but we have not been able to unambiguously determine the species.
Basionym: Agaricus fastibilis var. albus Fr. [as "alba"] (1838) [“1836-1838”]

Types: Not designated. Described from Sweden.

Original diagnosis: Var. alba stipites longiori aequali subcavo apice fibroso-squamuloso, lamellis distantibus plorantibus.

English translation: Var. alba with longer, equal, slightly hollow stipe with fibrous-squamulose apex, lamellae distinctly weeping.

Commentary: Agaricus fastibilis var. alba is described as having a long stipe and distant, weeping lamellae; it is not possible to reach a reliable interpretation of this taxon.

Full name: Hebeloma fastibile var. elegans Massee (1893)
Published: British Fungus-Flora. A Classified Text-Book of Mycology 2: 171 (1893)
Taxonomic status: This is a Hebeloma but we have not been able to unambiguously determine the species.
Types: It has not been possible to locate a type at K. Described from Britain.

Diagnosis: Pileus purple brown.

Commentary: Massee describes this variety under A. fastibilis for which he refers to Cooke’s plate 406. We believe Cooke’s plate shows Hebeloma subtortum. The only separating character of Hebeloma fastible var. elegans should be ‘pileus purple brown’. It is not possible to decide whether this is H. mesophaeum or a different species.

Full name: Hebeloma fastibile var. sulcatum Rea (1922)
Published: British Basidiomycetae. A Handbook to the Larger British Fungi: 253 (1922)
Taxonomic status: This is a Hebeloma but we have not been able to unambiguously determine the species.
Notes: Replacement name for: Agaricus sulcatus Lindgr., Bot. Notiser 12: 200 (1845); nom. Illegit. (Art 53.1), non Agaricus sulcatus J.F. Gmel., Syst. Nat. 13th ed. 2: 1425 (1792).

Types: Type material not found. Described from Sweden: Kinnekulle, Österplana-Wall in July and August 1844.

Homotypic synonyms: Agaricus sulcatus Lindgr. (1845); Hebelomatis sulcatum Locq. [as “(Fr.)”] (1979) [“1977”]

Original diagnosis: Agaricus (Hebeloma) sulcatus, pileo carnoso convexo glabro viscoso primitus involute margineque sulcato, stipite solido nitido squamuloso deorsum incrassato apice farinaceo candido, lamellis crassis rigidis subdistantibus e candido argillaceis guttatis. In prato Österplana-Wall in Kinnekulle, Jul., Aug. 1844. Jove pluvio eximie viscosus. Junior totus extus intusque candidus margine involute e lamellae sulcato, demum obsolete flavo discoideus, disco submarginato. Stipes ima basi demum cavus. Lamellae parcius sed distincte guttatae. Odor Hebelomatum distincta. Cortina nulle. Ad Hebelom. B. Hymenocybe VI Denudati Fr. Epicr. locandus.

English translation: Agaricus (Hebeloma) sulcatus, pileus fleshy, convex, glabrous, viscid, with margin initially involute, sulcate; stipe solid, shiny, squamulose, broadened towards base, white with pruinose apex, lamellae thick, rigid, subdistant, white then clay-coloured guttulate. In the meadow Österplana-Wall in Kinnekulle, Jul., Aug. 1844. After rain exceptionally viscid. When young entirely externally and internally white with involute, sulcate margin, then slightly yellowish at centre, disk submarginate [meaning with weak umbo]. Stipe becoming hollow at base. Lamellae scarcely but distinctly guttulate. Odour distinctly hebelomatoid. Cortina absent. To be ranged in sect. Denudata Fr.

Commentary: In the protologue A. sulcatus is described with a sulcate pileus margin. To our knowledge no Hebeloma species is characterised by having a sulcate pileus margin, although the character may occur in several species. All other characters clearly indicate that A. sulcatus is a Hebeloma species of sect. Velutipes or sect. Denudata, probably the latter, but we are unable to say which species.