Lectotypification and epitypification of Boletus fechtneri Velen. in a paper in volume 71 of the journal Czech Mycology by Janda & al. (2019: 16). The protologue of Boletus fechtneri (Velenovský, 1922: 704–705) cited no specimens, but there is uncited original material (Art. 9.4(a)), i.e. a specimen collected by František Fechtner in 1921 and determined by Velenovský, which is the only available choice of lectotype. Reproduced by permission of the Czech Scientific Society for Mycology. Components of the typifications are as follows: Use of the words “lectotype” and “epitype”, as required by Art. 9.23.Use of the phrase “designated here”, as required by Art. 7.11.Specification of the herbaria in which the lectotype and epitype specimens are conserved (PRC, PRM), as required by Art. 9.22 and 9.21, respectively.Citation of the identifiers issued for the lecto- and epitypification by the recognized repository, MycoBank (“MBT 381727”, “MBT 381728”), as required by Art. F.5.4 in type designations for fungal names from 2019 onward.Citation of an isoepitype in the herbarium BRNM.Herbarium codes PRC, PRM, and BRNM are followed by numbers identifying the specimens (see Rec. 9C.1).Statement (Janda & al., 2019: 20) explaining in what way the lectotype is ambiguous such that epitypification is necessary (Rec. 9B.2): lacks the colour typical of the species; lacks mature spores; formaldehyde in the preserving liquid prevents DNA extraction.Selection of the epitype specimen to have similar locality, habitat, and morphological details to those mentioned in the protologue.Because Butyriboletus fechtneri (Velen.) D. Arora & J.L. Frank and its basionym Boletus fechtneri have the same type (Art. 7.3), both names are lecto- and epitypified here.Boletus appendiculatus subsp. pallescens Konrad is a heterotypic synonym and is not therefore typified here.

  Part of: Turland N (2019) The Code Decoded. Advanced Books. https://doi.org/10.3897/ab.e38075