Truffle trouble: what happened to the Tuberales?

Truffle trouble: what happened to the Tuberales? 

Thomas LÆSSØE a, *, Karen HANSEN b,y 

a Department of Biology, Copenhagen University, DK-1353 Copenhagen K, Denmark 

b Harvard University Herbaria – Farlow Herbarium of Cryptogamic Botany, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA 

article info 

Article history: 

Received 10 February 2006 

Received in revised form 

27 April 2007 

Accepted 9 August 2007 

Published online 25 August 2007 

Corresponding Editor: Scott LaGreca 

Keywords: 

Ascomycota 

Helvellaceae 

Hypogeous 

Pezizaceae 

Pezizales 

Pyronemataceae 

Introduction 

abstract 

Fungi pursuing the truffle strategy by producing underground 

sporocarps have long been recognized as a polyphyletic group 

with representatives in the former Zygomycota now Glomeromycota 

(Endogone, Glomus a.o.), Ascomycota, and Basidiomycota. 

Those with asci were at one time all placed in the Tuberales 

(e.g. Tulasne & Tulasne 1851; Fischer 1897; Knapp 1950; 

Hawker 1954; Eckblad 1968; Korf 1973a). Nannfeldt (1946) 

wrote: ‘The question is raised whether Tuberineae is monophyletic 

or whether it is composed of different operculates 

that have evoluted convergently into hypogeous forms.’ 

mycological research 111 (2007) 1075–1099 

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mycres 

An overview of truffles (now considered to belong in the Pezizales, but formerly treated in 

the Tuberales) is presented, including a discussion on morphological and biological traits 

characterizing this form group. Accepted genera are listed and discussed according to a system 

based on molecular results combined with morphological characters. Phylogenetic 

analyses of LSU rDNA sequences from 55 hypogeous and 139 epigeous taxa of Pezizales 

were performed to examine their relationships. Parsimony, ML, and Bayesian analyses of 

these sequences indicate that the truffles studied represent at least 15 independent lineages 

within the Pezizales. Sequences from hypogeous representatives referred to the following 

families and genera were analysed: Discinaceae–Morchellaceae (Fischerula, Hydnotrya, 

Leucangium), Helvellaceae (Balsamia and Barssia), Pezizaceae (Amylascus, Cazia, Eremiomyces, 

Hydnotryopsis, Kaliharituber, Mattirolomyces, Pachyphloeus, Peziza, Ruhlandiella, Stephensia, 

Terfezia, and Tirmania), Pyronemataceae (Genea, Geopora, Paurocotylis, and Stephensia) and 

Tuberaceae (Choiromyces, Dingleya, Labyrinthomyces, Reddellomyces, and Tuber). The different 

types of hypogeous ascomata were found within most major evolutionary lines often nesting 

close to apothecial species. Although the Pezizaceae traditionally have been defined 

mainly on the presence of amyloid reactions of the ascus wall several truffles appear to 

have lost this character. The value of the number of nuclei in mature ascospores as a delimiting 

family character is evaluated and found to be more variable than generally assumed. 

ª 2007 The British Mycological Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 

Malençon (1938) also advanced ideas about the evolution of 

truffles and their transformation from epigeous apothecial 

species to hypogeous truffles, but, as pointed out by Burdsall 

(1968), his system relied too heavily on macroscopic features. 

Korf (1973b) discussed the evolution of convoluted pezizalean 

forms, both above and below ground, and although he accepted 

the Tuberales, he indicated that at least some of the 

taxa were derived along various evolutionary lines within 

the Pezizales. He considered Tuberales to be a biological unit 

rather than a phylogenetic one. Trappe (1971) published a similar 

statement, and finally Trappe (1979), proposed that the 

order be abandoned, with one major part being moved to the 

* Corresponding author. 

E-mail address: thomasl@bi.ku.dk 

y 

Present Address: Swedish Museum of Natural History, Cryptogamic Botany, Box 50007, SE-10405 Stockholm, Sweden. 

0953-7562/$ – see front matter ª 2007 The British Mycological Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 

doi:10.1016/j.mycres.2007.08.004

1076 T. Læssøe, K. Hansen 

Pezizales and just Elaphomyces to the Elaphomycetales. Fischer 

(1897) had earlier referred Elaphomyces to the ‘Plectascineae’ 

but alongside the Terfeziaceae. Later (Fischer 1938), Terfeziaceae 

reappeared within the Tuberales. Trappe (1979) kept some hypogeous 

lines, as families, within his Pezizales, but other hypogeous 

taxa were placed alongside epigeous species in various 

mixed families. Burdsall (1968) had already convincingly 

merged one tuberalean genus (Geopora) with the pezizalean 

genus Sepultaria. Eckblad (1968) gave many clear arguments 

for not accepting the Tuberales but, nevertheless, concluded 

the opposite. In the first Outline of the Ascomycetes (Eriksson 

1982) Tuberales (with Geneaceae, Terfeziaceae, and Tuberaceae) 

were relegated to synonymy of Pezizales. Ainsworth & Bisby’s 

Dictionary of the Fungi (Hawksworth 1983) likewise abandoned 

the use of Tuberales and listed the order under Pezizales (and 

Elaphomycetales). Trappe’s hypothesis was tested in a longlasting 

study of the ultrastructure of pezizalean taxa guided 

by Kimbrough and summarized in Kimbrough (1994), that 

for example, led to the placement of Hydnobolites in the Pezizaceae, 

based on both cytological and ultrastructural features of 

asci and ascospores. Also the placement of Barssia in the Helvellaceae 

followed from these studies. The most important 

character used was the morphology of the complicated septal 

pore-apparatus at the base of the asci (Kimbrough 1994). Another 

prominent feature, the number of nuclei in the mature 

spores that originated in Berthet’s (1963) studies on epigeous 

Pezizales, was also taken into account when trying to delimit 

natural groups of truffles (e.g. Berthet 1982; Donadini 1986a, 

b). With the onset of the molecular taxonomy era, these early 

hypotheses have gradually been confirmed and expanded 

upon, or in some cases, corrected (e.g. O’Donnell et al. 1997; 

Norman & Egger 1999; Percudani et al. 1999; Hansen et al. 

2005; Perry et al. 2007). In a comprehensive treatment of European 

(mainly Italian) truffles Montecchi & Sarasini (2000) refer 

former Tuberales taxa to Elaphomycetales, with just Elaphomyces, 

and Pezizales with seven families: Pezizaceae (four genera), 

Pyronemataceae (four genera), Geneaceae (two genera), Helvellaceae 

(three genera), Balsamiaceae (two genera), Terfeziaceae 

(four genera) and Tuberaceae with two genera. Although, they 

cite recent molecular results, they have chosen a conservative 

approach by following the systems proposed in Trappe (1979) 

and Pegler et al. (1993). One group of researchers (Parguey- 

Leduc et al. 1987b, 1990; Janex-Favre & Parguey-Leduc 2003) 

proposed to accept Tuberales based mainly on the genera Tuber 

and Terfezia that were considered closely related, mostly 

based on a perceived different development of asci and ascospores. 

van Brummelen (1994) gave a summary of the arguments 

put forward up to that time. Eriksson (2006b), 

influenced by data published by e.g. de Hoog et al. (2005), discussed 

what to do nomenclatorily if Pezizales are restricted 

to Pezizaceae. Although Tuberales are a possible choice, he proposed 

to find another name. Currently, however, there is no 

supported molecular phylogenetic evidence that suggests 

Pezizaceae are not part of the Pezizales (the Pezizaceae are supported 

as monophyletic by a BS value of 100 %, but the relationships 

among the included families in e.g. de Hoog et al. 

(2005) are without support). 

The purpose of this paper is to review morphological and biological 

traits, and the systematics of the passively dispersed, 

more or less hypogeous Pezizales. Using all currently available 

LSU sequences from pezizalean truffles, in analyses with 

a broad sample of epigeous pezizalean taxa, we will further investigate 

the phylogenetic relationships and evolution of these 

truffle fungi. Ascomycetous truffles, which are now considered 

to be non-pezizalean (Elaphomyces, Eurotiomycetes), are not 

treated in detail. The taxonomic position of all accepted taxa 

at and above generic level are given and compared with previous 

classifications. The accepted classification is based on molecular 

phylogenetic analyses and morphological characters. 

A truffle definition 

Ascomycete truffles can be defined as producing sporocarps 

below or at ground level and with a simultaneous loss of active 

spore dispersal. In several genera, for example Geopora and 

Helvella, species with intermediate characters can be found. 

Also Sarcosphaera coronaria is an example of a fungus that 

has nearly become a truffle. It forms apothecia below ground 

and often opens by a rather small aperture, but as the spores 

are actively ejected it can still be classified as a ‘‘cup fungus’’. 

The genus Caulocarpa was based on such hypogeous Sarcosphaera 

ascomata (Trappe 1975c). Although some species tend 

to produce sporocarps in or on the litter, we still group them 

with the truffles as long as they have lost active spore dispersal. 

Glaziella and Paurocotylis are good examples. 

Morphological features of pezizalean truffles 

The ascomata are typically fleshy but can be quite hard and 

cartilaginous. An outer rind (peridium) is often present and 

can be almost woody and sculptured. Even at maturity the 

spores do not become powdery, except in a few genera (e.g. 

Carbomyces) that are adapted to extreme xeric conditions. 

There is a continuous variation from truffles with a single cavity 

lined with a hymenium, often with a single opening, to 

truffles with intricate foldings or with pockets of asci in 

a firm gleba. Weber et al. (1997) defined three different types 

of hypogeous ascomata within the Pezizales: ptychothecia 

with persistent, recognizable hymenia and variously folded 

or even solid ascomata; stereothecia without hymenia and 

solid ascomata; and exothecia with external hymenia. None 

of these ascoma types can accommodate Paurocotylis and 

Glaziella. These genera produce ascomata that are hollow, 

without paraphyses, and furthermore, are unusual in being 

fully exposed at maturity. Hansen et al. (2001) reviewed the 

morphological features of the truffles considered to belong 

to the Pezizaceae. Those pezizalean species that have been 

studied in ontogenic detail, such as Tuber and Terfezia species 

(Janex-Favre & Parguey-Leduc 2003), start out as apothecial 

before folding occurs. The asci can at one end of the variation 

resemble those of operculate species being cylindrical with 

spores in one row or at the other end be completely globose 

with or without a pedicel and with a variable number of often 

very large spores. The ascospores vary in colour from hyaline 

to almost black, and in surface features from smooth and 

thin-walled to very thick-walled with intricate ornamentation. 

The ascus walls can be more or less layered and amyloid 

or inamyloid. The Pezizaceae are characterized by amyloid asci, 

but this feature appears to have been lost in many pezizaceous 

truffles (Hansen et al. 2001, 2005).

What happened to the Tuberales? 1077 

Truffle identification and nomenclature 

Castellano et al. (1989) have published a slightly dated key to 

the spores of genera found in north temperate forests. An 

updated key, taking further characters into use, can be found 

on the Internet (http://natruffling.org/ascokey.htm), and an 

earlier printed version was published by Trappe & Castellano 

(1992). Trappe’s (1979) synoptical key is still useful. In Europe 

two main illustrated accounts with keys are current 

(Montecchi & Sarasini 2000; Pegler et al. 1993). Other important 

contributions include Lange (1956), Lawrynowicz (1988), and 

Montecchi & Lazzari (1993). 

The names of pezizalean truffles are given sanctioned status 

if included in Fries (1821–1832) and should be used when 

available for a given taxon. In practice, however, another tradition 

has evolved, where Vittadini’s (1831) much more accurate 

work on European truffles has been used as the de facto 

starting point for especially Tuber nomenclature. As Trappe 

(2001) has pointed out, it will be necessary to propose these 

Vittadini names for conservation over the sanctioned Friesian 

names in order not to disrupt the very long usage of these 

names for such economically important organisms. 

Distribution, diversity, and dispersal 

Although, false truffles (hypogeous Basidiomycota) have been 

collected in extreme arctic environments, the true truffles 

would appear to have a more limited distribution, with a clear 

peak in diversity in temperate–subtropical, often rather dry 

climates. Although a high number of publications are dedicated 

to truffles, a reasonable picture of the diversity and distribution 

of the group has still not been achieved. Castellano 

et al. (2004) from one long Australian study suggest a figure 

of 600 species (although mainly of false truffles), most of 

which remain to be described. A part of this project was described 

in Claridge et al. (2000). Only ten of these species belong 

to the Ascomycota, and two apparently to undescribed 

genera. [See also the extensive review of Australian and New 

Zealand sequestrate fungi by Bougher & Lebel (2001).] Only 

Europe and parts of North America can be claimed to be 

reasonably well covered with respect to hypogeous fungi 

(Castellano et al. 2004). Distributions of European taxa are 

dealt with in Lawrynowicz (1991). Parts of Asia would seem 

to be equally rich in truffles. Africa and South America are apparently 

especially poor in hypogeous ascomycetes but be 

aware of the likely differences in sampling efforts in various 

regions. Verbeken & Walleyn (2003) in a checklist of subsaharan 

sequestrate fungi only reported one pezizalean species, 

Terfezia decaryi from Madagascar. In addition, three species are 

known from the southern dry lands of continental Africa, 

including the Kalahari (Marasas & Trappe 1973; Ferdman 

et al. 2005). Two were separated as new genera (Ferdman 

et al. 2005). The third, Terfezia austroafricana, was listed as 

a member of Terfezia subgen Mattirolomyces and may require 

a new combination, as Mattirolomyces has been raised to generic 

rank. Although too little is known, it is fairly clear that 

many localized endemics are to be found among pezizalean 

truffles. 

It has been hypothesized that all, or nearly all, truffles are 

passively dispersed with animal vectors, but there is very little 

experimental evidence to support this assertion. Various 

small mammals, including Australian marsupials (e.g. 

Claridge & May 1994), and voles and chipmunks in North 

America, collect and often hoard ascomata and by this activity 

are thought to play an active dispersal role (e.g. Fogel & Trappe 

1978; Maser et al. 1978). The stomach contents of voles and 

chipmunks have been found to contain over 70 % truffles. So 

far it has not been shown that pezizalean truffle spores can 

germinate after gut passage but in all likelihood they can. 

The volatile compounds truffles exude when ripe clearly substantiate 

the claim that these mammals are the key dispersal 

vectors. Also larger mammals such as boar and deer are well 

known for their ability to locate and digest truffles, and presumably, 

also act in a beneficial way to the truffles by their 

dispersal abilities. The volatile compounds may resemble 

pheromones (Claus et al. 1981) and can also be used in species 

recognition (e.g. Marin et al. 1984; Pacioni et al. 1990). Trappe 

(1977) and Trappe et al. (2001) have speculated that the ectomycorrhizal 

truffle partners migrated along with the rodent 

dispersers and the truffles themselves, many populations 

later becoming isolated as a result of continental drift. Many 

invertebrates (Diptera etc) also actively seek out truffles, but 

although a more parasitic aspect to this relationship can be 

postulated, additional dispersal ability cannot be ruled out. 

Even birds have been claimed to actively seek out truffles 

and possibly act as dispersal vectors (Alsheikh & Trappe 

1983b; Castellano et al. 2004). One example concerns the desert 

truffle Phaeangium (or Picoa) lefebvrei, which is believed to be 

dispersed by various species of desert-adapted larks, but 

also by cream-coloured courser and hoopoe. Another case 

deals with Paurocotylis pila, which at maturity has epigeous, 

orange–red fruit bodies coinciding with the fall of likewise 

bright-coloured Podocarpus fruits, known to be bird dispersed. 

Whether birds may also be involved in the dispersal of introduced 

British populations of Paurocotylis is not known. 

Material and methods 

Taxon sampling and alignment 

To summarize and determine the phylogenetic placement of 

hypogeous taxa within Pezizales, LSU rDNA sequences from 

48 hypogeous species (represented by 55 specimens) and 134 

epigeous pezizalean species (represented by 141 specimens) 

were compiled for analyses (for sequence accession numbers, 

see online Supplementary Data Table 1). Sequences were selected 

to represent all sub-lineages within Pezizales based primarily 

on Hansen et al. (2001, 2005), O’Donnell et al. (1997), and 

Perry et al. (2007). Nucleotide sequences were aligned by hand 

using the software program Se-Al v. 2.0a11 (Rambaut 1996 

Se-Al: Sequence Alignment Editor; available at http://evolve. 

zoo.ox.ac.uk/). The LSU rDNA contains highly divergent regions 

across all of the Pezizales. Therefore, three subset 

alignments were constructed, each representing one of three 

distinct lineages identified within the Pezizales (Fig 1)(Landvik 

et al. 1997; Hansen & Pfister 2007). The three alignments include 

representative taxa from the families Pezizaceae (lineage 

A; Fig 2); Caloscyphaceae, Discinaceae, Helvellaceae, Morchellaceae, 

Rhizinaceae, and Tuberaceae (lineage B; Fig 3); and


A 

Ascodesmidaceae and Pyronemataceae (lineage C; Fig 4). Members 

of the Sarcoscyphaceae and Sarcosomataceae were not included, 

because no truffle taxa were affiliated with these families. 

The final datasets included 68 epigeous species (from 72 specimens) 

and 17 hypogeous species (20 specimens) (lineage A); 22 

epigeous species (one specimen each) and 22 hypogeous species 

(23 specimens) (lineage B); and 44 epigeous species (47 

specimens) and nine hypogeous species (12 specimens) (lineage 

C). Based on phylogenetic analyses of higher-level relationships 

(e.g. Landvik 1996; Hansen & Pfister 2007; Perry et al. 

2007), Neolecta vitellina was used as an outgroup for lineage A 

(with the ingroup also including taxa from the lineages B and 

C); two species of Peziza and Iodophanus for lineage B; and Ascobolus 

and Peziza for lineage C. Alignments are available from 

TreeBASE (http://www.treebase.org) as accessions M3364 (lineage 

A), M3363 (lineage B), and M3362 (lineage C). 

Phylogenetic analyses 

B 


Sarcoscyphaceae 

Sarcosomataceae 

Morchellaceae-Discinaceae 

Analyses of the LSU were performed using PAUP version 

4.0b10 for Unix (Swofford 2002) and MrBayes 3.0b4 (Huelsenbeck 

& Ronquist 2001) on G5 Macintosh computers. MP, parsimony 

BS (PB), and Bayesian analyses were performed as in 

C 

Helvellaceae-Tuberaceae 

Rhizinaceae 

Caloscyphaceae 

Pezizaceae 

Ascobolaceae 

Ascodesmidaceae 

Glaziellaceae 

Fig 1 – Schematic tree giving an overview of the three major 

clades (A–C) identified within Pezizales using SSU rDNA 

sequences (after Landvik et al. 1997). Truffles have evolved 

within the families highlighted in bold. Families listed for 

each clade follow Eriksson (2006a). The Morchellaceae– 

Discinaceae and Helvellaceae–Tuberaceae lineages are 

according to O’Donnell et al. (1997). 

Hansen et al. (2005), except Bayesian MCMC were run for 5M 

generations. The GTR þ I þ G model of sequence evolution 

was selected for each dataset using MrModeltest v. 2.2 

(Nylander 2004). In Bayesian analyses, the first 1500 trees 

were deleted as the ‘burn-in’ period of the chain for the lineage 

A dataset, and Bayesian PP are based on the last 48,500 trees 

sampled. For the lineages B and C, the last 46,700 and 49,000 

trees were used, respectively. Clades represented by 

PB 75 % and/or PP 95 % are considered to be significantly 

supported. 

Based upon the results of the phylogenetic analyses, topologically 

constraint MP and ML analyses were used to evaluate 

how many times hypogeous taxa have been derived from 

epigeous apothecia-forming taxa, with loss of forcible spore 

discharge. Constraint topologies were manually specified in 

PAUP. The MP analyses were performed under the constraints, 

using the same settings as specified above (Hansen et al. 2005). 

The ML analyses consisted of heuristic searches with ten random 

addition sequence replicates, tree bisection–reconnection 

(TBR) branch swapping and starting trees obtained via 

stepwise addition. The ML GTR þ I þ G model parameters 

used, were fixed to values estimated from one of the unconstrained 

MP trees (from the original MP analyses). The 

Kishino–Hasegawa test (Kishino & Hasegawa 1989) and the 

Shimodiara–Hasegawa tests (Shimodaira & Hasegawa 1999) 

were used to compare constrained and unconstrained topologies 

in PAUP version 4.0b10. 

Results 

Phylogenetic relationships of truffles within lineage A 

The LSU dataset of lineage A included 973 characters with 338 

being parsimony informative. Parsimony analyses resulted in 

1391 equally MPTs (1327 steps, CI ¼ 0.333, RI ¼ 0.678). The 

Pezizaceae are highly supported as monophyletic (PB 99 %, PP 

100 %), with Ascobolaceae as the sister group (PB 97 %, PP 100, 

Fig 2). The strict consensus tree of all MPTs is highly resolved, 

but the deep level relationships are not well supported. Fourteen 

fine-scale lineages that correspond to the lineages resolved 

in Hansen et al. (2005) are recovered by all analyses. 

The 17 truffle species (11 genera) sampled are nested within 

five or six of the 14 lineages; Eremiomyces echinulatus is resolved 

separately with Peziza vacini in the MP analysis (Fig 2), 

but is placed in the Plicaria–Hapsidomyces lineage, along with 

Peziza phyllogena in ML and Bayesian analyses. The truffle 

Amylacus tasmanicus forms a highly supported sister taxon 

(PB/PP 100 %), to a highly supported clade of three species of 

the truffle genus Pachyphloeus, the anamorph Glischroderma 

sp. and the apothecial Scabropezia (PB 98 %, PP 100 %). The 

two species of the truffle genus Hydnotryopsis form a strongly 

supported group with Sarcosphaera (PB/PP 100 %). The three 

specimens of Sarcosphaera coronaria (from North America and 

Denmark) exhibit quite large sequence variation, but form 

a monophyletic group (PP 95 %). The placement of Mattirolomyces 

is uncertain; it is deeply nested within the Peziza s. str. lineage 

in the strict consensus tree of all MP trees, but is grouping 

with Iodophanus, as a sister group to the Peziza s. str. lineage in 

ML and Bayesian analyses (none of these positions are with

80 

Neolecta vitellina 

100 Byssonectria terrestris 

98 Melastiza contorta 

Otidea onotica 

100 Otidea umbrina 

Smardaea amethystina 

100 

Greletia reticulosperma 

Morchella elata 

Ascobolus carbonarius 

100 

Ascobolus denudatus 

81 Ascobolus crenulatus 

Marcelleina pseudoanthracina 

76 

Marcelleina persoonii 

71 

Peziza gerardii (2) 

100 Peziza gerardii (1) 

Iodophanus hyperboreus 

Iodophanus carneus 

Amylascus tasmanicus 

100 

Scabropezia flavovirens 

89 

Scabropezia scabrosa 

Pachyphloeus melanoxanthus 

Glischroderma sp. 

Pachyphloeus citrinus (1) 

98 

Pachyphloeus citrinus (2) 

Pachyphloeus virescens 

100 

77 

100 

Peziza natrophila 

Peziza quelepidotia 

Peziza apiculata 

Boudiera tracheia 

Boudiera dennisii 

Pachyella babingtonii 

Pachyella punctispora 

Pachyella violaceonigra 

Pachyella habrospora 

Peziza succosa 

Peziza succosella 

Peziza michelii 

Peziza sp. 

Pezizaceae 

Sarcosphaera coronaria (1) 



Hydnotryopsis sp. 

Hydnotryopsis setchellii 

Mattirolomyces terfezioides 

Peziza howsei 

Peziza proteana, petersii 

Peziza exogelatinosa 

Peziza proteana f. sparassioides 

Peziza lobulata 

Peziza subviolacea 

Peziza ampelina 

Peziza subcitrina 

Peziza echinispora 

Peziza varia 

Peziza arvernensis 

Peziza ampliata 

Peziza vesiculosa 

Iodowynnea auriformis (2) 

Iodowynnea auriformis (1) 

75 Kalaharituber pfeilii 

Peziza luteoloflavida 

Peziza obtusapiculata 

Peziza polaripapulata 

Peziza retrocurvata 

Ruhlandiella berolinensis 

Peziza whitei 

Peziza limnaea 

Peziza badia 

Peziza alaskana 

Peziza badiofusca 

Peziza saniosa 

Peziza depressa 

Peziza griseorosea 

Peziza atrovinosa 

Peziza ellipsospora 

Terfezia boudieri (1) 

Terfezia boudieri (2) 

Terfezia claveryi (1) 

Terfezia claveryi (2) 

Cazia flexiascus 

Tirmania pinoyi 

Tirmania nivea 

Peziza ostracoderma 

Peziza phyllogena (1, 2) 

Hapsidomyces venezuelensis 

Plicaria carbonaria 

Plicaria trachycarpa 

Plicaria endocarpoides 

Peziza vacini 

Eremiomyces echinulatus 

Peziza bananicola 

Peziza subisabellina (2) 

Peziza subisabellina (1) 

10 changes 

100 

100 

100 

78 

100 

100 

90 

92 

78 

93 

100/95 

91 

98/74 

94 

100 

100 

98 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

Pachyphloeus- 

Amylascus 

100 

100 

100/89 

100 98 

100/99 

100 

97 

100 

100 

100 

100 

98 

100 

100 

99 

95 

* 95 

Sarcosphaera- 

100 

Hydnotryopsis 

* 

96 

Peziza s. str. 

96/72 

* 

98 

97 

100 

* 

Iodowynnea-Kaliharituber 

* 

100 

100 

99/76 

* 

* 

97/ 

* * 

Peziza depressa-Ruhlandiella 

100 

100 

100 

100/94 

100/98 

infolded or chambered 

* 

ptycothecium 

* 

solid ptycothecium 

stereothecia 

exothecium 

100 

99 

100/98 

Fig 2 – Phylogenetic relationships among epigeous and hypogeous taxa in Pezizaceae (lineage A), derived from parsimony 

analyses of LSU rDNA sequences. One of 1391 most parsimonious trees. Terminal taxa represent individual specimens 

(from Hansen et al. 2001, 2005; Ferdman et al. 2005; Norman & Egger 1999). Neolecta vitellina was used to root the 

phylogeny. Hypogeous lineages are shown in bold. Numbers above branches represent PP ( 95 %). Numbers below 

branches represent PB support ( 70 %). Symbols by taxon names indicate specific fruiting body types of truffles. 

Fine-scale lineages, as defined in Hansen et al. (2005), that include truffles are indicated for discussion in the text.


100 

100 


Peziza depressa 

Iodophanus carneus 

100 Morchella conica 

100 Morchella esculenta 

Verpa bohemica 

Verpa conica 

Disciotis venosa 

Fischerula subcaulis 

Morchellaceae 

100 

Leucangium carthusianum 

98 Pseudorhizina californica 

Discina macrospora 

Gyromitra melaleucoides 

Hydnotrya cerebriformis 

Discinaceae 

99/73 Hydnotrya cubispora 

Balsamia magnata 

91 Barssia oregonensis 

Underwoodia columnaris 

Wynnella silvicola 

Helvella crispa 

93 

96 

Helvella rivularis 

Helvella pezizoides 

Helvella aff. cupuliformis 

Helvella albella 

Helvella atra 

Helvella lacunosa 

98/78 Tuber californicum 

Tuber puberulum (1) 

Tuber puberulum (2) 

90 Tuber oligospermum 

77 Tuber borchii 

Tuber maculatum 

Tuber canaliculatum 

100 99 

Tuber gibbosum 

Tuber aff. gibbosum 

Tuber rufum var. rufum 

Tuber melanosporum 

100 

84 

95 

Tuber excavatum 

Dingleya verrucosa 

Reddellomyces donkii 

Labyrinthomyces varius 

Choiromyces venosus 

Choiromyces alveolatus 

Rhizina undulata 

Caloscypha fulgens 

100/97 

100 

100 

100 

* 

* 

* 

100/89 

98 

100 

100 

100/70 

Rhizinaceae 

Caloscyphaceae 

significant support). Kaliharituber is suggested as closely related 

to Iodowynnea (PB 75 %). The truffle genera Cazia, Ruhlandiella, 

Terfezia, and Tirmania, and two truffle species of Peziza, 

P. ellipsospora and P. whitei, are resolved among apotheciaforming 

Peziza species in the P. depressa–Ruhlandiella lineage. 

This lineage, excluding Ruhlandiella, is supported by 100 % 

PP, but is with only 53 % PB. 

At least nine independent origins of hypogeous forms are 

supported by the LSU gene trees (Fig 2). Constrained MP and 

ML analyses forcing the two species of Hydnotryopsis to be 

monophyletic could not be rejected (Table 1). Likewise, forced 

monophyly of the hypogeous taxa within the P. depressa– 

Ruhlandiella lineage (not including Eremiomyces), did not yield 

trees that were significantly longer than the unconstrained 

MP trees. However, under this constraint the ML tree was 

significantly worse than the unconstrained optimal ML tree 

(Table 1). Trees rejected by MP and ML include the following 

monophyly constraints: truffles in the P. depressa lineage 

Helvellaceae 

Tuberaceae 

infolded or chambered 

ptycothecium 

solid ptycothecium 

stereothecia 

10 changes 

Fig 3 – Phylogenetic relationships among epigeous and hypogeous taxa within the families Morchellaceae, Discinaceae, 

Helvellaceae and Tuberaceae (lineage B), derived from parsimony analyses of LSU rDNA sequences. One of three most 

parsimonious trees. Terminal taxa represent individual specimens (primarily from O’Donnell et al. 1997). Peziza vesiculosa, 

P. depressa and Iodophanus carneus were used to root the phylogeny. Hypogeous lineages are shown in bold. Numbers 

above branches represent PP ( 95 %). Numbers below branches represent PB support ( 70 %). Symbols by taxon names 

indicate specific fruiting body types of truffles. 

including Eremiomyces (with or without Ruhlandiella), Amylascus–Pachyphloeus, 

Pachyphloeus, Mattirolomyces with Terfezia, 

and Kaliharituber with Terfezia (Table 1). The most conservative 

conclusion is thus, that forcible spore discharge has been 

lost only once within each of the lineages Sarcosphaera– 

Hydnotryopsis and P. depressa–Ruhlandiella, once in Eremiomyces, 

Kaliharituber, Mattirolomyces, and Amylascus, and three times in 

Pachyphloeus (assuming that active spore discharge, once lost, 

can not be regained). 

Phylogenetic relationships of truffles within lineage B 

Parsimony analyses of lineage B yielded three equally MPTs 

(1235 steps, CI ¼ 0.423, RI ¼ 0.639) produced from 699 characters, 

of which 233 were parsimony informative. The strict consensus 

tree of the three MPTs is highly resolved, but support 

for the families are lacking, except for Tuberaceae (PB 84 %, 

PP 100 %, Fig 3). The trees recovered by MP, Bayesian, and



100 

100 

Ascobolus carbonarius 


100 

98 

Smardaea amethystina 

Greletia reticulosperma 

99 

100 Otidea onotica 

98 Otidea concinna 

Otidea alutacea 

Humaria hemisphaerica (1, 2) 

10 changes 

73 

100/ Genea hispidula (1) 

100 

100 

Genea hispidula (2) 

100 

Genea sp. 

100 Genea harknessii (1) 

100/83 

100 Genea harknessii (2) 

99/86 Genea arenaria 

Genea verrucosa 

Parascutellinia carneosanguinea 

Wilcoxina mikolae 

100/81 Wilcoxina rehmii 

Pyronema confluens 

Melastiza cornubiensis 

Aleuria aurantia 

Byssonectria terrestris 

Cheilymenia vitellina 

100/ 

100 Geopora cooperi 

96/74 99 Geopora cooperi f. gilkeyae 

100 Geopora sp. 2 

100 Geopora sp. 3 

99 Geopora cf. cervina 

100 96/ Geopora sp. 1 

100/98 Geopora arenicola (1, 2) 

96 Miladina lecithina 

100 

Ramsbottomia asperior 

Scutellinia scutellata 

Trichophaea woolhopeia 

Sphaerosporella brunnea 

Anthracobia macrocystis 

Sowerbyella imperialis 

100 Tarzetta pusilla 

99 

100 Tarzetta catinus 

Stephensia shanorii 

Stephensia bombycina 

98 74 Geopyxis carbonaria (1, 2) 

Paurocotylis pila 

Geopyxis sp. 

Lasiobolus cuniculi 

100 Lasiobolus ciliatus 

92 Ascodesmis nigricans 

100 Eleutherascus lectardii 

Pulvinula constellatio 

100 Pulvinula convexella 

Pseudombrophila merdaria 

100/100 Pseudombrophila theioleuca 

Octospora axillaris 

76 

96 

100 

Neottiella rutilans 

Lamprospora cf. ascoboloides 

Lamprospora dictydiola 

100 

ptycothecia, infolded or 

chambered 

ascoma without hymenium, 

chambered 

100/ 

100 

* 

100/ 

* 

* 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

Ascodesmidaceae 

100 

100 

Fig 4 – Phylogenetic relationships among epigeous and hypogeous taxa in Pyronemataceae (lineage C), derived from 

parsimony analyses of LSU rDNA data consisting of 894 aligned nucleotides for 56 taxa. One of three most parsimonious 

trees. Terminal taxa represent individual specimens. Hypogeous lineages are shown in bold. Numbers above branches 

represent PP ( 95 %). Numbers below branches represent PB support ( 70 %). Symbols by taxon names indicate specific 

fruiting body types of truffles. 

ML analyses did not possess any supported conflict. Bayesian 

analyses support Helvellaceae (PP 99 %) excluding Underwoodia 

columnaris, which is unresolved. A Morchellaceae–Discinaceae 

(PP 100 %) and a Helvellaceae–Tuberaceae lineage are resolved 

by MP and ML analyses (Fig 3), in accordance with O’Donnell 

et al. (1997), who used both SSU and LSU. The truffles Leucangium 

and Fischerula subcaulis are variously placed within the 

Morchellaceae–Discinaceae lineage, and their exact position is 

unknown. Two species of Hydnotrya, H. cerebriformis and 

H. cubispora, form a monophyletic group (PB 73 %, PP 99 %) 

nested within the Discinaceae in all analyses. Balsamia, B. magnata 

and B. oregonensis, is likewise monophyletic (PB 91 %, PP 

100 %) and forms a sister group to a highly supported clade 

of apothecial Helvella species and Wynella silvicola in all analyses. 

The 11 species of Tuber included form a monophyletic 

group (PB 69 %, PP 100 %), as a sister group to a clade of four 

additional truffle genera, Dingleya, Reddellomyces, Labyrinthomyces, 

and Choiromyces s. str. 

The most parsimonious interpretation of the LSU phylogeny 

suggests that the truffle form originated four times 

within lineage B (Fig 3). Nevertheless, constraint MP and ML 

analyses forcing Fischerula, Leucangium, and Hydnotrya into a 

monophyletic group could not be rejected (Table 1). This suggests 

that forcible spore discharge has been lost at least three 

times within lineage B, once in the Morchellaceae–Discinaceae 

lineage, once in Helvellaceae, and in Tuberaceae. 

Phylogenetic relationships of truffles within lineage C 

Parsimony analyses of lineage C yielded three equally MPTs 

(1679 steps, CI ¼ 0.424, RI ¼ 0.637) from 894 total characters, 

of which 302 were parsimony informative. The strict


Table 1 – Evaluation of different constrained tree topologies in MP and ML analyses, compared with the MPTs and the 

optimal MLT, respectively, using the Kishino–Hasegawa test for MP and the Shimodiara–Hasegawa test for ML ( p < 0.05) 

Tree MP ML 

Tree lenght a 

consensus tree of the three MPTs is nearly completely resolved, 

but as for the lineages A and B the deep level relationships 

are poorly supported. Pyronemataceae are suggested to be 

paraphyletic, because Ascodesmidaceae are nested within it. 

Ascodesmidaceae are highly supported as monophyletic 

(Fig 4). Twelve clades of pyronemataceous taxa are recovered 

by all analyses, which correspond to those identified by Perry 

et al. (2007) who used a much larger taxon sampling. The nine 

truffle species included are nested within three, moderate to 

highly supported clades with apothecial pyronemataceous 

taxa (Fig 4). The five species of the hypogeous genus Genea 

form a monophyletic group (PB 86 %, PP 99 %), as a sister group 

to the epigeous Humaria hemisphaerica (PB/PP 100 %). The truffle 

Geopora cooperi, forms a highly supported monophyletic 

group with five epigeous species of Geopora (PB/PP 100 %). 

Geopora is suggested to be a sister group to a clade of the 

apothecial Ramsbottomia, Scutellinia, and Miladina (PP 100 %). 

The truffles Stephensia and Paurocotylis pila form a highly supported 

group with apothecial Tarzetta and Geopyxis (PB 99 %, PP 

100 %). Stephensia is suggested to be non-monophyletic; 

Stephensia bombycina form a well-supported group with 

Geopyxis carbonaria (PB 74 %, PP 100 %), with Paurocotylis pila 

(PP 98 %), Geopyxis sp. (PP 100 %), and Stephensia shanorii as successive 

sister taxa. 

The most parsimonious interpretation of the LSU phylogeny 

suggests that forcible spore discharge has been lost at 

least five times within the Pyronemataceae (in Genea, Geopora 

cooperi (not completely), Paurocotylis and twice in Stephensia). 

The constraint analyses forcing Stephensia to be monophyletic, 

or Stephensia and Paurocotylis to be monophyletic were rejected 

(Table 1). 

Significantly 

worse? 

Evolution of ascomata types 

At least five different forms of ascomata exist within Pezizales. 

Epigeous apothecia of various shapes with forcible spore discharge 

are the most common form and occur in each of the 

A, B, and C lineages. This is likely the ancestral form, and 

the molecular data suggest that the apothecia-forming 

Pezizales have given rise to at least four different types of 

hypogeous ascomata without forcible spore discharge ( pro 

parte sensu Weber et al. 1997): ptychothecia [hollow to folded 

with internal hymenia, in Pezizaceae, Discinaceae, Helvellaceae, 

Tuberaceae and Pyronemataceae (Figs 2–4)]; stereothecia [solid 

without hymenia, in Pezizaceae, Discinaceae–Morchellaceae, 

and Tuberaceae (Figs 2 and 3)]; exothecia [external hymenia, 

Ruhlandiella (Pezizaceae, Fig 2)]; and an unnamed type found 

in Glaziella and Paurocotylis (Glaziellaceae and Pyronemataceae, 

Fig 4; recalls bladder-shaped ptychothecia, but without organized 

hymenia). The molecular data suggests that ptychothecia 

and stereothecia have evolved multiple times in different 

lineages within Pezizales. 

Taxonomy 

Ln likelihood Difference 

in LnL 

P-value Significantly 

worse? 

Lineage A, unconstrained MPT 2078 Best – – – – 

Lineage A, unconstrained optimal MLT – – 11183.03738 – – Best 

Hydnotryopsis monophyletic 2082 (þ4) No 11189.40900 6.37162 0.083 No 

Truffles in ‘P. depressa lineage’ monophyletic 

(including Ruhlandiella and Eremiomyces) 

2095 (þ17) Yes 11224.21753 41.18015 0.006* Yes 


(not including Ruhlandiella, 

but including Eremiomyces) 

2093 (þ15) Yes 11213.75681 30.71942 0.004* Yes 


(not including Eremiomyces, 

but including Ruhlandiella) 

2085 (þ7) No 11201.55494 18.51755 0.020* Yes 

Amylascus and Pachyphloeus monophyletic 2098 (þ16) Yes 11219.85875 36.82137 0.041* Yes 

Pachyphloeus monophyletic 2090 (þ12) Yes 11214.23004 31.19266 0.005* Yes 

Mattirolomyces with Terfezia 2094 (þ12) Yes 11215.54524 32.50785 0.009* Yes 

Kaliharituber with Terfezia 2098 (þ20) Yes 11218.85867 35.82129 0.051 No 

Lineage B, unconstrained MPT 1235 Best – – – – 

Lineage B, unconstrained optimal MLT – – 6540.88728 – – Best 

Fischerula–Leucangium with Hydnotrya 1239 (þ4) No 6550.10480 9.21752 0.077 No 

Lineage C, unconstrained MPT 1679 Best – – – – 

Lineage C, unconstrained MLT – – 8958.87503 – – Best 

Stephensia with Paurocotylis 1694 (þ15) Yes 8991.20102 32.32599 0.001* Yes 

Stephensia monophyletic 1692 (þ13) Yes 8992.05211 33.17708 0.001* Yes 

a Difference in length between MPTs and constrained trees in parentheses. 

Taxonomic implications: an overview of accepted 

hypogeous Pezizales taxa 

Lineage A 

The Ascobolaceae have no confirmed hypogeous representatives 

but various truffle taxa have at times been placed in


the family, e.g. Sphaerosoma and Ruhlandiella (as Muciturbo) (e.g. 

Castellano et al. 2004). See Figs 2 and 5A-D. 

Pezizaceae Dumort. 1829 (syn. Terfeziaceae E. Fisch. 1897) 

The family Terfeziaceae as defined by Zhang (1992a, 1992b) 

are included in this family, but was accepted in the latest 

Dictionary of the Fungi (Kirk et al. 2001). Recent molecular results 

(e.g. Norman & Egger 1999; Hansen et al. 2005) clearly demonstrate 

it should be relegated to synonymy of the Pezizaceae (see 

review in Hansen & Trappe 2002). Thirteen out of 25 genera in 

the Pezizaceae (Eriksson 2006a) are exclusively truffle or trufflelike 

taxa, but several truffle species have also been described 

in Peziza. Hansen et al. (2001) gave a review of the genera. 

The genus Peziza was found to be non-monophyletic and all 

other pezizaceous genera nested within it (Hansen et al. 

2001, 2005), and a revised generic arrangement is under way 

(Hansen & Pfister, in preparation.). Two lineages discovered 

comprise most of the Peziza species, the Peziza s. str. and the 

P. depressa–Ruhlandiella lineages, the latter including several 

truffles (Cazia, Peziza ellipsospora, P. whitei, Ruhlandiella, Terfezia 

and Tirmania; Fig 2). The P. depressa–Ruhlandiella lineage was 

highly supported in combined analyses of LSU, b-tubulin, 

and RPB2 (Hansen et al. 2005). Only one truffle genus, Mattirolomyces, 

clusters in Peziza s. str. in MP analyses, but without 

support (Fig 2). Three types of hypogeous ascomata exist 

within the family (Fig 2). The Amylascus–Pachyphloeus and 

the P. depressa–Ruhlandiella lineages produce both ptychothecia 

and stereothecia. The cardinal feature of Pezizaceae, the 

amyloid reaction of the ascus wall, has been lost in several 

of the hypogeous taxa (e.g. Cazia and Terfezia). 

Amylascus Trappe 1971 

Type: Amylacus herbertianus. 

The type species of Amylacus has not been sampled for molecular 

phylogenetic study, but the genus is most likely monophyletic 

[A. tasmanicus has even been considered a synonym 

of A. herbertianus (Beaton & Weste 1982)] and is suggested to 

be closely related to Scabropezia and Pachyphloeus. Amylascus 

was originally placed in the Terfeziaceae or Geneaceae (Trappe 

1971, 1975a), but later, based on the thick-walled, amyloid 

asci, was placed in the Pezizaceae (Trappe 1979). Trappe 

(1975a) and Beaton & Weste (1982) monographed the genus. 

Amylascus includes only the two mentioned species, both 

recorded only in Australia. 

Cazia Trappe 1989 

Type: Cazia flexiascus. 

Originally, and at times by some subsequent authors, 

placed in the Helvellaceae (Trappe 1989), but Kirk et al. (2001) 

place it in the Terfeziaceae. O’Donnell et al. (1997) were the first 

to place Cazia in the Pezizaceae. As can be seen from Fig 2, itis 

nested within the P. depressa–Ruhlandiella lineage containing 

both epigeous and hypogeous taxa. Cazia quercicola Fogel & 

States (2002) is only the second recognized species. 

Eremiomyces Trappe & Kagan-Zur 2005 

Type: Eremiomyces echinulatus (syn. Choiromyces echinulatus). 

Ferdman et al. (2005) found this species to cluster within the 

Pezizaceae (with Terfezia and Tirmania species) and not with the 

type of Choiromyces, which has affinities with the Tuberaceae. 

Fig 5 – Fruiting body forms in lineage A (Pezizaceae). (A-B) Sarcosphaera coronaria (A) Closed apothecia, JHP-95.074 (C). (B) Open 

apothecia. (C) Hydnobolites cerebriformis, ptychothecia. (D) Terfezia leptoderma, stereothecia. Photos: J.H. Petersen (A), 

K. Hansen (B), J. Nitare (C), J. Santos (D).


Besides the molecular results the highly inflated exipular cells 

also suggest this fungus belongs to Pezizaceae rather than 

Tuberaceae. The exact placement of Eremiomyces within Pezizaceae 

is not resolved in our analyses, but it is likely among members 

of the P. depressa–Ruhlandiella, Plicaria–Hapsidomyces or P. 

phyllogena lineages (the inclusive clade A in Hansen et al. 2005). 

Hydnobolites Tul. & C. Tul. 1843 (Fig 5C) 

Type: Hydnobolites cerebriformis. 

This genus apparently has only two accepted species, 

H. cerebriformis from Europe and H. californicus from North 

America. The type species has saccate, amyloid [when pretreated 

in potassium hydroxide (KOH)] asci formed in poorly 

defined hymenia, without well-differentiated paraphyses, in 

brain-like, pale ascomata. The spores are globose with a reticulate 

and spinulose ornament. The genus was previously placed 

in the Tuberaceae (Gilkey 1955; Korf 1973a; Castellano et al. 2004) 

or in the Terfeziaceae (Hawker 1954; Trappe 1971, 1979). Trappe 

(1979) regarded Hydnobolites to be close to Pachyphloeus and 

Terfezia (Fig 5D). Kimbrough et al. (1991) suggested a placement 

in the Pezizaceae based on ultrastructural observations of septal 

pores. They also found the asci to be weakly amyloid after treatment 

in 2 % KOH. No molecular data are available for Hydnobolites, 

and the placement is mainly based on the amyloid asci and 

the suggested close relationship to Pachyphloeus and Terfezia. 

Hydnotryopsis Gilkey 1916 

Type: Hydnotryopsis setchellii. 

Gilkey (1954) later abandoned the genus and placed it in 

Choiromyces. In agreement with Hansen et al. (2005), Hydnotryopsis 

setchelli and an unnamed Hydnotryopsis are suggested 

as closely related to the near hypogeous Sarcosphaera coronaria 

(Figs 2 and 5A-B). The constraint analyses forcing the two Hydnotryopsis 

species to be monopyletic could not be rejected 

(Table 1). Hydnotryopsis was placed in the Pezizaceae by Fischer 

(1938), and based on the diffusely amyloid asci, followed by 

e.g. Trappe (1975c, 1979). The solid ascomata have a peridium 

of globose cells, and asci and paraphyses in a hymenial 

configuration. 

Kalaharituber Trappe & Kagan-Zur 2005 

Type: Kalaharituber pfeilii (syn. Terfezia pfeilii). 

Ferdman et al. (2005) demonstrated (using ITS and LSU) the 

non-monophyletic nature of Terfezia and erected Kalaharituber 

for a southern African desert truffle originally described as 

T. pfeilii (basionym in error given as Tuber pfeilii). No epigeous 

representatives were included in their analyses. Our analyses 

indicate a relationship with the epigeous Iodowynnea (PB 75 %, 

Fig 2). Taylor et al. (1995) discussed the biology of K. pfeilii and 

suggested it could be mycorrhizal with species of Acacia, although 

a strong association with grasses was noted. 

Mattirolomyces E. Fisch. 1938 

Type: Choiromyces terfezioides (syn. Mattirolomyces terfezioides, 

Terfezia terfezioides). 

This genus was reinstated by Percudani et al. (1999) and accepted 

as such by Diéz et al. (2002) and Ferdman et al. (2005), after 

having been sunk under Terfezia, where it still recides in e.g. 

Montecchi & Sarasini (2000). Unlike species of Terfezia, M. terfezioides 

occurs in woodland or in ruderal habitats rather than in 

deserts (e.g. Montecchi & Sarasini 2000). Kovács et al. (2003) 

reviewed the mycorrhizae studies on Mattirolomyces and similar 

taxa and concluded that there is no clear evidence for a mycorrhizal 

function, and an ectomycorrhizal anatomy does not 

develop (with Robinia or Helianthemum ovatum) but, instead, an 

anatomy referred to as ‘terfezioid’. Kovács et al. (2007) maintained 

that the trophic strategy of this fungus remains ambiguous. 

It forms sclerotia in the same manner as certain species 

of Morchella. Although the position of Mattirolomyces is uncertain 

in our analyses, constraint analyses forcing Mattirolomyces 

to group with Terfezia were rejected (Table 1). Healy (2003) described 

an additional American species, but based on molecular 

data (R. Healy, K. Hansen and G. Kovács, unpublished 

results) this species is not a member of Mattirolomyces. 

Mycoclelandia Trappe & Beaton 1984 (syn. Clelandia) 

Type: Clelandia arenacea (syn. M. arenacea). 

Beaton & Weste (1982) revised the two known species (as 

Clelandia) and Trappe & Beaton (1984) replaced the invalid 

homonym Clelandia for Mycoclelandia. The asci stain strongly 

or diffused blue in iodine solutions. There are no sequences 

available, but based on the known morphological features 

the genus clearly belongs in the Pezizaceae. 

Pachyphloeus Tul & C. Tul. 1844 (syn. Pachyphlodes, Cryptica) 

Type: Pachyphloeus melanoxanthus. 

The ascomata typically have an apical depression or pore 

connecting to a few open veins. The peridium is verrucose 

and contains globose cells. Trappe (1979) placed the genus in 

the Terfeziaceae and gave the above synonymy (Trappe 

1975c). It had mainly been treated within the Tuberaceae (e.g. 

Knapp 1951; Korf 1973a). Amyloid asci occur in some species 

of Pachyphloeus (e.g. the type species), and based on this and 

anatomical features the genus was placed in the Pezizaceae 

(Dissing & Korf 1980). This has been confirmed by molecular 

data (Norman & Egger 1999; Percudani et al. 1999; Hansen 

et al. 2005). Phylogenetic analyses of LSU suggest that the 

type species is more closely related to species of Scabropezia 

than to other species of Pachyphloeus (PB 89 %, PP 100 %, Fig 2). 

Also, constraint analyses forcing the three included Pachyphloeus 

spp. to be monophyletic were rejected (Table 1). This 

suggests that Scabropezia may be a synonym of Pachyphloeus. 

Peziza Fr. 1822 (syn. Hydnoplicata) 

Type (lectotype): Peziza vesiculosa. 

Several hypogeous species, with passive spore dispersal, 

have been accepted in the otherwise epigeous, apothecial 

genus Peziza. Trappe (1979) noted six hypogeous species in 

Peziza and recently Peziza infossa (syn. P. quercicola) was added 

(Fogel & States 2002, 2003). Although this latter species is described 

as having operculate asci, no active spore discharge 

had been observed. Peziza has been demonstrated several 

times, using molecular phylogenetics, to be non-monophyletic 

(see above under Pezizaceae). The two pezizas with passive 

spore dispersal, P. whitei and P. ellipsospora, included in 

the molecular analyses, are nested within the P. depressa–Ruhlandiella 

lineage (Hansen et al. 2001, 2005)(Fig 2). In this lineage, 

these two taxa represent a less derived truffle form; both 

produce infolded ptycothecia, with a single opening, cylindrical 

asci with eight ascospores in a single row and paraphyses


placed in hymenia. Both species have retained the amyloid reaction 

of the asci. More derived truffle forms in this lineage 

(Terfezia and Tirmania) produce compact ascomata (stereothecia), 

with elongate-clavate to sub-globose asci (5-8 spored), 

randomly arranged in fertile areas, separated by sterile veins. 

Tirmania has amyloid asci, whereas this reaction is lost in 

Terfezia. The relationships among the taxa in the P. depressa– 

Ruhlandiella lineage are not unambiguously resolved, and a hypothesis 

about the evolution of these forms must await 

further molecular studies using more variable gene regions 

and a larger taxon sampling. Trappe & Claridge (2006), nevertheless, 

resurrected Hydnoplicata for P. whitei based on the molecular 

results by Hansen et al. (2001). However, depending on 

the delineation within this lineage (see also Hansen et al. 2005 

and Fig 2), other possible and older generic names could be 

Terfezia or Tirmania. Hydnoplicata was based on H. whitei later 

transferred to Peziza (Trappe 1975c), and this was again 

confirmed by the molecular phylogenetic study by Hansen 

et al. (2001, 2005). Beaton & Weste (1982) gave an account of 

P. whitei. Also Korf (1973b) discussed this species (as P. jactata). 

Ruhlandiella Henn. 1903 emend. Dissing & Korf 1980 (syn. 

Tremellodiscus C.G. Lloyd, ?Muciturbo P.H.B. Talbot 1989) 

Type: Ruhlandiella berolinensis. 

Ruhlandiella is more or less epigeous but with passive spore 

dispersal and with a somewhat convoluted ascoma, where the 

hymenium covers the surface (exothecial) rather than being 

disposed internally. The paraphyses have characteristic gelatinous 

sheaths. Dissing & Korf (1980) placed this genus in the 

Pezizaceae with a proposed relationship to the genera Sphaerozone, 

Boudiera, and Plicaria. Molecular results place it in the 

P. depressa–Ruhlandiella lineage (Hansen et al. 2005) (Fig 2). 

Muciturbo was accepted and listed in the Ascobolaceae by 

Castellano et al. (2004), but Galán & Moreno (1998) and Hansen 

(2000) suggest it as a synonym of Ruhlandiella based on a detailed 

comparative study of the proposed distinguishing characters. 

Dissing & Korf (1980) also noted that another Hennings 

genus, Exogone, could represent an additional generic synonym 

and an additional species. Ruhlandiella (as Muciturbo) 

has been associated with a Chromelosporium anamorph 

(Warcup & Talbot 1989) in accordance with other connections 

in this clade (Hansen et al. 2005). Warcup & Talbot (1989) 

reported the spores of Muciturbo species to be uninucleate. 

Sphaerozone Zobel 1854 (syn. Sphaerosoma subgen. Tulasnia) 

Type: Sphaerozone ostiolatum (syn. S. tulasnei). 

This is a monotypic genus with exothecial, more or less 

spherical, and to some extent convoluted ascomata, and 

amyloid asci. These characters, on current evidence place 

the genus within the Pezizaceae. The asci are more or less 

as in typical members of the family but indehiscent, and 

the paraphyses are likewise typical. The exposed hymenium 

also suggests a fairly recent radiation from actively dispersed 

ancestors. Beaton & Weste (1978) overlooked the amyloid asci 

in the type species. The non-amyloid species, Sphaerozone 

echinulatum and S. ellipsosporum, should not be accepted in 

the genus, as also stated in Beaton & Weste (1982), and 

were duly transferred to Gymnohydnotrya (Zhang & Minter 

1989b). Dissing & Korf (1980) first noted the amyloidity of 

the asci in the type species and also clarified the 

nomenclatural confusion surrounding the names Sphaerozone 

and Sphaerosoma. There is a certain resemblance to the 

genus Ruhlandiella. All known collections are from the 

vicinity of ectotrophic plants, so it is most likely ectomycorrhizal. 

Montecchi & Sarasini (2000) illustrate and 

describe the genus but also cited Sphaerosoma as a synonym 

(see this). 

Terfezia (Tul. & C. Tul.) Tul. & C. Tul. 1851 (Fig 5D) 

Type (lectotype): Terfezia leonis (syn. Terfezia arenaria). 

Two species of Terfezia, T. boudieri and T. claveryi, are 

deeply nested within the P. depressa–Ruhlandiella lineage 

(Hansen et al. 2005) (Fig 2). The Terfeziaceae were based on 

the lack of structure in the arrangement of the asci that 

led early workers (e.g. Fischer 1897) to consider Terfezia outside 

the Tuberales. Vizzini (2003) considered the Tuberaceae 

and Terfeziaceae to exhibit extreme convergent morphology 

and also noted that the relationship of these families have 

been especially controversial. Trappe (1971) accepted the 

family Terfeziaceae within the Tuberales and later in the 

Pezizales (Trappe 1979). Trappe & Sandberg (1977) studied 

the Japanese/North American non-desert species T. gigantea 

in detail and described a rather complicated ascospore wall 

with minute spines, while Janex-Favre & Parguey-Leduc 

(1985) and Janex-Favre et al. (1988) studied the ascus structure 

and ascospores in T. claveryi and T. leptoderma and found 

similarities to Tuber. Janex-Favre & Parguey-Leduc (2003) 

again studied the ascomata and concluded that Tuber and 

Terfezia should be retained within the Tuberales. Norman & 

Egger (1999) and Percudani et al. (1999) found evidence for 

apositionwithinthePezizaceae (see also Kalaharituber and 

Mattirolomyces). Diéz et al. (2002), in a recent ITS study, 

hypothesized a single origin of the so-called desert truffles, 

Tirmania and Terfezia, but included only hypogeous taxa 

and no other truffle taxa from the P. depressa–Ruhlandiella 

lineage. Trappe (1971) characterized the genus Terfezia as 

the most heterogenous genus in the Terfeziaceae. For a review 

of the mycorrhizal biology of the genus see Kovács et al. 

(2003). 

Tirmania Chatin 1892 [date disputed: 1890 sec Trappe; 1891 

sec Hansen et al. 2001] 

Type: Tirmania africana (syn. T. nivea). 

The amyloid reaction of the asci combined with a double 

ascospore wall, with the outer smooth and the inner with a reticulate-roughened 

wall, characterize the genus according to 

Alsheikh & Trappe (1983a). The two species accepted by these 

authors associate with species of Helianthemum, but the exact 

nature of this association is disputed (Kovács et al. 2003). They 

apparently disperse by wind after drying in situ, rather than 

relying on an animal vector. The species are prized as food 

items, and Rayss (1959, as cited in Alsheikh & Trappe 1983a) 

suggested that the manna that fed the Israelites could have 

been Tirmania truffles. Moreno et al. (2000) reported smooth 

spores in T. nivea and a fine net-like ornament on T. pinoyi 

spores. See also the descriptions in Malençon (1973) and in 

Montecchi & Sarasini (2000). Diéz et al. (2002) studied a number 

of desert truffles by molecular phylogenetic analyses, and 

concluded that the sampled species formed a monophyletic 

group. Trappe (1979) transferred the genus to the Pezizaceae


based on the amyloid asci. Our analyses place Tirmania in the 

P. depressa–Ruhlandiella lineage. 

Lineage B 

The monotypic, parasitic Rhizinaceae and Caloscyphaceae have 

no known hypogeous representatives. Truffles forming 

ptychothecia and stereothecia are identified in both the 

Morchellaceae–Discinaceae and Helvellaceae–Tuberaceae lineages 

(Figs 3, 6A-H). The family Tuberaceae is unique in its high diversity 

of strictly hypogeous taxa. 

Morchellaceae–Discinaceae 

O’Donnell et al. (1997) placed Leucangium and Fischerula as 

incertae sedis due to suspected long-branch attraction between 

these taxa. Additional sampling of hypogeous taxa in this 

group, including the type species of Fischerula, could possibly 

help resolve this problem. 

Fischerula Mattir. 1928 (Fig 6A) 

Type: Fischerula macrospora. 

Mattirolo (1928) and Knapp (1951) separated Fischerula from 

Tuber based on the peculiar spore ornamentation and the 

more or less fusiform asci. Trappe (1975b, 1979) placed Fischerula 

in the Helvellaceae, a placement that can be rejected as long 

as the two known species are considered congeneric. The 

ascoma of the American taxon, F. subcaulis, has a stipe-like 

extension, as the name indicates, which is absent on the 

European taxon. 

Leucangium Quél. 1883 

Type: Leucangium ophthalmosporum (syn. L. carthusianum). 

Li (1997) studied the ultrastructure of Leucangium carthusianum, 

often treated within Picoa, and found it to be close to species 

in Morchellaceae and Helvellaceae. The structure of the 

excipulum also indicated such a relationship. Li found the ascospores 

to be multi-nucleate, which would point towards the 

Morchellaceae rather than the Helvellaceae. Likewise, O’Donnell 

et al. (1997) found that L. carthusianum clustered in the neighbourhood 

of the Morchellaceae, while the type of Picoa clustered 

with Otidea (Pyronemataceae) (data not shown in O’Donnell et al. 

1997). L. carthusianum has apiculate-fusiform ascospores in 

saccate asci. Palfner & Agerer (1998b) described the ectomycorrhizae 

of this species. 

Discinaceae Benedix 1961 (syn. Hydnotryaceae M. Lange 1956) 

Besides the epigeous taxa Discina, Pseudorhizina and Gyromitra, 

this family also includes the hypogeous taxon Hydnotrya 

(O’Donnell et al. 1997)(Figs 3, and 6C-D). The family name Hydnotryaceae 

has been used to replace Pseudotuberaceae (nom. 

inval., Art. 36.1) (e.g. Burdsall 1968), but is itself invalid (no 

Latin nor any other kind of diagnosis, e.g. Art. 36.1). 

Hydnotrya Berk. & Broome 1846 (syn. Geoporella, Gyrocratera) 

(Figs 6C-D) 

Type: Hydnotrya tulasnei. 

Knapp (1950, 1952) discussed the genus, including the synonym 

Geoporella, and gave a fairly detailed description, whilst 

a thorough key with a few misplaced taxa can be found in 

Gilkey (1954). Trappe (1975c) dealt with the generic names 

Geoporella and Gyrocratera. Trappe (1979), Donadini (1986b) 

and later Abbott & Currah (1997) accepted the genus in the 

Helvellaceae, which cannot be confirmed by the molecular 

data. Donadini (1986a) reported 4-nucleate spores. The morphological 

variation within the genus spans more or less hollow 

ascomata with cylindrical asci to nearly solid ascomata 

(Figs 6C-D) with clavate-saccate asci. There is likewise a great 

variation in spore shape and ornamentation. Whether the variation 

in spore characters should be given taxonomic importance 

in generic assignment awaits further molecular data. 

Zhang (1991b) demonstrated that there is a conspicuous, but 

non-functional, opening in the ascus apex of H. cerebriformis. 

Gymnohydnotrya B.C. Zhang & Minter 1989 

Type: Gymnohydnotrya australiana. 

Zhang & Minter (1989b) accepted three Australian species 

and placed the genus in the Helvellaceae based on the four nuclei 

in the spores. The main diagnostic feature was the lack of 

a peridium, an external, and in the type species also internal 

hymenium, and the non-pigmented spores with an unusual 

and intricate ornamentation (a complex reticulum) as 

revealed by SEM. Vizzini (2003) lists this genus in the Discinaceae 

based on the similarity to Hydnotrya and the 4-nucleate 

ascospores. There are no published LSU sequences available 

for phylogenetic analysis. Two of the species had previously 

been placed in Sphaerozone (Beaton & Weste 1978). 

Helvellaceae Fr. 1823 (syn. Balsamiaceae E. Fisch. 1897) 

The Balsamiaceae, a family accepted in an emended version 

by Trappe (1979) and by e.g. Pegler et al. (1993), were considered 

a synonym of the Helvellaceae by van Brummelen (in 

Dissing & Schumacher 1994) and in an emended version by 

O’Donnell et al. (1997), a conclusion that was followed by 

e.g. Eriksson & Winka (1998) and Hansen & Knudsen (2000). 

Analyses of LSU identified a Balsamia–Barssia lineage (PB 91 % 

and PP 100 %) as a poorly supported sister group to a 

Helvella–Wynnella lineage (Fig 3). However, this relationship 

was highly supported in combined analyses of LSU and SSU 

(PB 100 %, O’Donnell et al. 1997; Hansen & Pfister 2007). 

Balsamia Vittad. 1831 (syn. Pseudobalsamia E. Fisch.) (Fig 6E) 

Type (lecto): Balsamia vulgaris. 

Knapp (1950) gave a detailed account of this genus, which he 

placed in ‘section B’ of his own (invalid; Art. 36.1) family 

Pseudotuberaceae, but he later (Knapp 1952) placed it in his 

‘Eu-tuberaceae’, based on further developmental studies; a 

conclusion also reached by Hawker (1954). Donadini (1986b) observed 

four nuclei in mature spores and proposed a placement 

in the Helvellaceae. The asci can be more or less organized in 

a palisade-like structure. Morphologically, Balsamia species 

are typical truffles with closed fruit bodies with a veined interior 

and a coarse peridium (Fig 6E). The asci are sac-like with 

clustered spores. The spore morphology is simple as in many 

species of Helvella. Species delimitation has been a subject of 

discussion with Szemere (1965) taking a very broad view. 

Trappe (1975c) agreed that Pseudobalsamia should be placed in 

synonymy with Balsamia. Palfner & Agerer (1998a) described 

the ectomycorrhiza formed between B. alba and Pseudotsuga. 

Barssia Gilkey 1925 

Type: Barssia oregonensis.


Fig 6 – Fruiting body forms in lineage B (Morchellaceae-Discinaceae-Helvellaceae-Tuberaceae). (A) Fischerula macrospora, 

solid ptychothecium. (B) Choiromyces venosus, solid ptychothecium. (C) Hydnotrya tulasnei, ptychothecia, JV87-356 (C). 

(D) Hydnotrya michaelis, ptychothecia, JHP-00.018 (C). (E) Balsamia polysperma, ptychothecia, JV97-080 (C). (F) Helvella astieri, 

ptychothecia, (C-65663). (G) Tuber aestivum, stereothecia, JHP-00.395. (H) Tuber rufum, stereothecia, JV93-321(C). Photos: 

J. Santos (A), J.H. Petersen (B, D, G detail), J. Vesterholt (C, E, H), T. Læssøe (F), C. Lange (G).


Kimbrough et al. (1996) studied the ultrastructure of the type 

species. Trappe (1979) included another monotypic genus, Phymatomyces, 

in Barssia, but as the type has been lost, this 

Japanese taxon should be re-investigated. Barssia ascomata 

have a smoother surface compared to species of Balsamia. 

Molecular results indicate a very close relationship between 

Barssia and Balsamia, so that it may be a sound move to 

synonymize these genera, but more taxa, including the type 

of Balsamia, should be sampled before such a decision is made. 

Helvella L. 1753: Fr. 

Helvella astieri Korf & Donadini (Fig 6F) (Korf 1973b) is the 

only known truffle within the genus. No molecular data are 

available for H. astieri, but its placement in Helvella is convincing 

on morphological grounds. It has closed semi-hypogeous 

fruit bodies and apparently passive spore dispersal, but an 

operculum is still present. The species is very rarely recorded, 

but is known from France and Denmark (Hansen & Knudsen 

2000). The similarity of H. astieri and species of Hydnotrya 

was used in placing Hydnotrya in the Helvellaceae (Trappe 

1979; Pegler et al. 1993). Trappe (1979): ‘Korf in effect emended 

the family (Helvellaceae) to include astipitate, infolded and 

chambered ascomata by the description of Helvella astieri 

Korf & Donadini. This species is essentially a Hydnotrya with 

operculate asci and hyaline spores’. This view was strongly 

opposed by Donadini (1986a), as he found spores, paraphyses 

and excipulum exactly as in Helvella. 

Insufficient data [placed here in Eriksson (2006a)]: 

Picoa Vittad. 1831 

Type: Picoa juniperi. 

This genus was placed in the Balsamicaeae by e.g. Trappe 

(1979) and likewise in Montecchi & Sarasini (2000). Some species 

have asci arranged in a clear palisade, whereas in others 

the asci are more dispersed. The genus can be difficult to differentiate 

from Balsamia based on the characters employed 

e.g. by Montecchi & Sarasini (2000). Preliminary LSU rDNA sequence 

data of P. juniperi, suggest it is more closely related to 

Otidea (unpublished data in O’Donnell et al. 1997) than to the 

taxa in clade B (as sampled by O’Donnell et al. 1997). 

Tuberaceae Dumort. 1822 

Only hypogeous taxa cluster alongside the likewise hypogeous 

genus Tuber. Ascomata produced by the Dingleya– 

Choiromyces lineage show a persistent hymenium (chambered 

to completely compressed ptychothecia), whereas ascomata 

produced by Tuber spp. have lost the hymenium (stereothecia). 

Tuber is the most speciose genus of ascomycetous truffles, 

and it is known from many areas around the world, 

including North America, Central America, Europe, and Asia, 

but apparently not from subsaharan Africa and South America. 

It has been introduced to Australia (Bougher & Lebel 

2001). Dingleya, Reddellomyces, and Labyrinthomyces clearly 

have a centre of diversity in Australia and New Zealand. 

Choiromyces Vittad. 1831 (syn. e.g. Piersonia) (Fig 6B) 

Type: Choiromyces meandriformis (syn. C.venosus) 

Although often placed in the Helvellaceae (e.g. in Pegler et al. 

1993) current molecular phylogenies place the type species as 

a sister to Tuber, making it possible to include it in the Tuberaceae 

(O’Donnell et al. 1997). Gilkey (1955) and also Korf 

(1973a) suggested this placement, whereas Hawker (1954) 

and others (e.g. Trappe 1979) placed the genus in the Terfeziaceae 

based on structural studies. Zhang & Minter (1989a) studied 

C. gangliformis (considered by some, e.g. Montecchi & 

Sarasini (2000), as a possible synonym of C. meandriformis) in 

detail and found four nuclei in the spores, which could 

indicate the Helvellaceae. However, 4-nucleate spores are also 

commonly found in Tuber. Zhang & Minter (1989a) found 

multi-layered ascus walls in taxa belonging to Choiromyces as 

opposed to taxa of f.ex. Terfezia. This complex wall system 

would appear to characterize taxa in the Tuberaceae. They 

also emphasized the strange, pitted spore ornamentation. 

Dingleya Trappe 1979, emend. Trappe, Castellano & 

Malajczuk 1992 

Type: Dingleya verrucosa. 

The genus was described from New Zealand and stated to 

differ from Hydnotrya species by having a more solid, but 

apparently still chambered gleba and a verrucose peridium. 

Later, the affinities were considered to be with Reddellomyces 

and Labyrinthomyces (Trappe et al. 1992), which our analyses 

confirm (Fig 3). Trappe et al. (1992) recognized six species. It 

is not unlikely that in a future revision the three genera will 

be lumped. 

Labyrinthomyces Boedijn 1939, emend. Trappe, Castellano & 

Malajczuk 1992 

Type: Labyrinthomyces varius. 

Trappe et al. (1992) accepted this genus within the Pyronemataceae 

s.l. (as tribe Otideae or undescribed tribe), but the 

type species is highly supported within Tuberaceae in molecular 

phylogenies (O’Donnell et al. 1997) (Fig 3). There is a strong 

relation to Reddellomyces and Dingleya (PB 95 %, PP 100 %). 

Zhang & Minter (1988), Beaton & Weste (1977), and Malençon 

(1973) also discussed the status of this genus, but their concept 

included Dingleya and Reddellomyces, whereas Trappe et al. 

(1992) restricted the genus to the type species. 

Paradoxa Mattir. 1935 

Type: Paradoxa monospora. 

Knapp (1951) discussed this genus and declared ‘Stellung 

dieses Genus ist noch unsicher’. Vizzini (2003) indicated 

that it nests within the genus Tuber (data not shown). It is 

normally included in the Tuberaceae (e.g. Montecchi & Sarasini 

2000; Castellano et al. 2004). As the name indicates this 

Italian truffle has 1-spored asci, and the globose spores 

have a low, net-like ornament. The ascoma surface is fibrillose 

from closely packed hyphae. We accept it ad interim 

within the Tuberaceae. 

Reddellomyces Trappe, Castellano & Malajczuk 1992 (syn. 

Labyrinthomyces subgen. Simplex) 

Type: Reddellomyces westraliensis. 

Trappe et al. (1992) separated this taxon from Labyrinthomyces 

and Dingleya based on a smooth and glabrous peridium and 

asci with 1–5 spores. They accepted four species. Our analyses 

of existing sequences indicate a close relationship between 

Labyrinthomyces, Dingleya, and Reddellomyces, a group of taxa


that Malençon (1973) treated in an expanded version of 

Labyrinthomyces. Trappe et al. (1992) considered these taxa to 

belong to the Pyronemataceae (but in different tribes), but as 

can be seen from Fig 3, they clearly are close to Tuber, and 

maybe they should be united under Labyrinthomyces. 

Tuber F.H. Wigg. 1780: Fr. (syn. Aschion, Ensaluta, Oogaster, 

Lespiaultinia, Delastreopsis, Terfeziopsis, Mukagomyces) 

(Figs 6G-H) 

Type: Tuber gulosorum. [This name is currently not understood 

and is open to interpretation, but most likely represents 

T. aestivum Vittad. 1831 (Fig 6G). Various other typifications are 

given in the literature, including Index Fungorum, which lists 

T. aestivum. A conservation procedure will probably be needed 

to solve this problem, as Trappe (2001) points out the sanctioned 

T. albidum also represents T. aestivum]. 

The apothecial nature of the primordial Tuber ascomata has 

long been known (e.g. Parguey-Leduc et al. 1990; Janex-Favre & 

Parguey-Leduc 2002, 2003) and in some species this can even 

be hinted at in mature specimens. Parguey-Leduc et al. (1987a, 

1987b) studied asci and spores of T. melanosporum in ultrastructural 

detail. Li & Kimbrough (1995) studied ultrastructural 

characters and supported a placement within Pezizales. The 

characters found were so divergent that they suggested that 

Tuber could be polyphyletic. A Geniculodendron-like anamorph 

has been reported from Tuber dryophilum (Urban et al. 2002). It is 

a big genus with 63 species according to Kirk et al. (2001). The genus 

forms a rather diverse group with a well-supported separate 

position within the present phylogenetic analysis (Fig 3). The 

synonymy cited above is according to Trappe (1975c, 1979). 

Janex-Favre & Parguey-Leduc (2002) apparently recognized the 

genus Delastreopsis. The multinuclear condition of the mature 

spores is a well-known character in some species of Tuber (e.g. 

Donadini 1987). Mello et al. (2005) investigated the white (Piedmont) 

truffle (T. magnatum) in detail anddiscussed various explanations 

for the nuclear condition. Vizzini (2003) indicated that 

most species have four nuclei in the majority of the ascospores, 

whereas a few species have less or more nuclei in the spores. Recently, 

Wedén et al. (2005) tested whether the height of the spore 

ornament can be used (as has been claimed) to distinguish two 

disputed truffles T. aestivum and T. uncinatum. All samples 

formed a single fully supported group and the names should 

be treated as synonyms, thus confirming the conclusion reached 

by some early workers (e.g. Hawker 1954). Kovács & Jakucs (2006) 

published a detailed phylogenetic and anatomical paper on what 

they termed the white truffles. Papers describing Tuber mycorrhizae 

include Blaschke (1987), Rauscher et al. (1995) and Zambonelli 

et al. (1993, 1999). Chevalier & Frochot (1997) published 

a whole book on the Burgundy truffle, a name traditionally attached 

to T. uncinatum, now considered a synonym of T. aestivum 

(Wedén et al. 2005). The review of Tuber by Ceruti et al. (2003) 

should also be consulted. Roux et al. (1999) compared some Chinese 

and European truffles based on molecular studies. A suite of 

new species is currently being discovered and described in China 

(e.g. He et al. 2004). Trappe et al. (1996) provided a key to Tuber species 

with a spiny-reticulate spore ornament. There is an ongoing 

project to stabilize the use of Tuber names (e.g. Mello et al. 2000). 

Insufficient data [In Eriksson (2006a) placed in Pezizales incertae 

sedis]: 

Loculotuber Trappe, Parladé & I.F. Alvarez 1993 

Type: Loculotuber gennadii. 

The authors (Alvarez et al. 1993) stated this monotypic 

genus to differ from Tuber in having glebal locules and stipitate 

asci. The spores tend to become citriform. They speculated 

that the genus formed an intermediate between an 

unknown epigeous member of the Pezizales and the genus 

Tuber. Castellano et al. (2004) listed this genus in the Tuberaceae. 

Lineage C 

The presumably strictly saprotrophic families Ascodesmidaceae, 

Sarcoscyphaceae and Sarcosomataceae have no known 

hypogeous representatives. Glaziellaceae are suggested to belong 

to this clade (Hansen & Pfister 2007; Perry et al. 2007) 

(Figs 4 and 7A-H). 

Glaziellaceae J.L. Gibson 1986 

Glaziella Berk. 1880 

Type: Glaziella vesiculosa Berk (syn. G. aurantiaca). 

This genus is unusual in several respects. It fruits more or 

less on top of the soil and is completely hollow with a rather 

thin rind that contains the monosporic asci, the spore being 

enormous. The only species Glaziella aurantiaca (Fig 7A) has 

been interpreted in many ways, including a placement in 

Xylaria (Sordariomycetes, Ascomycota), in the Zygomycota and finally 

in the Pezizales. An early molecular study (Landvik & 

Eriksson 1994b) suggested a relationship with members of 

the Pyronemataceae. Later Landvik et al. (1997) expanded on 

this and found further evidence, but still based on a very limited 

taxon sampling, for a relationship (low support) with e.g. 

Pulvinula and the likewise semi-hypogeous genus Paurocotylis. 

They ad interim accepted Glaziellaceae but not Glaziellales. Harrington 

et al. (1999) found support for inclusion in the Pezizales, 

but did not resolve a position within, although their results 

could indicate a closer relationship with the Sarcoscyphaceae 

rather than with the Pyronemataceae. They erroneously cited 

the origin of the specimen as Sweden. Castellano et al. (2004) 

maintained a placement in the Glaziellales. Perry et al. (2007) 

had Glaziellaceae in a sister position to Pyronemataceae but 

with low statistical support. Eriksson (2006a) accepts the family 

in Pezizales. At least some collections of this pantropical 

taxon are from decidedly ectotrophic communities, but the 

exact nature of its biology is not known. 

Pyronemataceae Schröter 1894 (syn. Geneaceae) 

This family has been defined as having 1-nucleate ascospores 

and non-amyloid asci. It has relatively few hypogeous 

members with Genea as the most prominent genus. Geopora 

is represented with just one species that only pro parte qualifies 

as a truffle (active spore dispersal not completely lost). Furthermore, 

with the exception of Paurocotylis, the truffles 

formed in Pyronemataceae all still possess a hymenium; no 

stereothecia are found. Epigeous members have both saprotrophic 

and mycorrhizal representatives, but Paurocotylis 

would seem to be the only saprotrophic hypogeous member. 

Although Geneaceae have gained wide acceptance, it can be 

concluded both by morphological studies by e.g. Pfister 

(1984) and Zhang (1992a), and molecular studies (Perry et al. 

2007) (Fig 4), that it is part of Pyronemataceae as currently 

circumscribed.


Fig 7 – Fruiting body forms in lineage C (Glaziellaceae-Pyronemataceae). (A) Glaziella aurantiaca, unnamed ascoma type, 

TL-6168 (C). (B) Genea fragrans, ptychothecia, JV99-373 (C). (C) Humaria hemisphaerica, apothecia, JHP-03.144. (D) Genabea 

cerebriformis, ptychothecia. (E) Geopora cooperi, ptychothecia. (F) Geopora arenicola, apothecia, JHP-93.114 (C). (G) Hydnocystis 

clausa, ptychothecia, PH00-192 (C). (H) Stephensia bombycina, ptychothecia. Photos: T. Læssøe (A), J. Vesterholt (B, G), J.H. 

Petersen (C, F), M. Tabarés (D), J. Nitare (E, H).


Genea Vittad. 1831 (syn. Hydnocaryon) 

Type (lectotype): Genea verrucosa. 

In Genea the ascomata have a more or less obvious opening, 

and can be unfolded to strongly folded (ptychothecia; Fig 7B). 

The asci are arranged in hymenia, but active spore dispersal 

has been completely lost. The tips of the paraphyses have 

fused to form an epithecium that protects the hymenium (Gilkey 

1954). The more or less hyaline spores have a very prominent 

ornamentation. Trappe (1979) accepted 29 species. Li & 

Kimbrough (1994) studied the ultrastructure that compared 

with members of the Pyronemataceae s.l. (as Otideaceae). Phylogenetic 

analyses of LSU rDNA support the placement in Pyronemataceae, 

and suggest that Genea is closely related to 

Humaria hemisphaerica (Figs 7B-C) (Perry et al. 2007) (PB and 

PP 100 %, Figs 4). Pfister (1984) proposed to place G. hispidula 

in Humaria based on analysis of excipular structures. Like species 

of Genea, H. hemisphaerica has also been shown to be ectomycorrhizal 

(Tedersoo et al. 2006). 

Smith et al. (2006) studied the phylogeny, morphology, 

and taxonomy of a group of Quercus-associated species and 

listed some minor differences between Genea and the closely 

related Genabea (Fig 7D) and Gilkeya. They added a couple of 

new species. 

Genabea Tul. & C. Tul. 1844 (syn. Myrmecocystis, Pseudogenea) 

Type: Genabea fragilis. 

The genus was accepted by Trappe (1975c) and again by 

Smith et al. (2006). It differs from Genea in having clavate to ellipsoid 

asci in hymenia enclosed in pockets, and in having 

echinulate spores rather than verrucose. Index Fungorum lists 

five binomials, two based on European material, two on North 

American, and one on Tasmanian. Zhang (1991a) placed 

Genabea in synonymy with Genea, which Korf (1973a) also had 

suggested. Smith et al. (2006) only dealt with one species, G. cerebriformis 

(Fig 7D), that clustered separately from the included 

Genea species based on LSU data. However, the type species of 

Genabea has not been sampled for molecular phylogenetic 

studies, which are needed in order to fully test the delimitation 

of Genabea, Myrmecocystis (type: M. cerebriformis) and Genea. 

Trappe (1975c) synonymized Myrmecocystis with Genabea. 

Geopora Harkn. 1885 (syn. Sepultaria, Pseudohydnotrya) 

Type: Geopora cooperi. 

Burdsall (1965, 1968) studied this genus in detail and combined 

Sepultaria with Geopora after having found actively discharged 

spores in the type species of Geopora. Korf (1973b) 

gave a detailed review. Biologically G. cooperi (Fig 7E) behaves 

like an ordinary truffle but the operculum and the build up 

of internal pressure within mature asci have not been lost. 

Other species develop in the soil but open at the surface at 

maturity (Fig 7F). Nannfeldt (1946) also gave a rarely cited, but 

detailed summary (in Swedish) of the Geopora situation. He 

regarded G. cooperi (as G. schackii) as a truffle based on biological 

arguments, such as passive animal dispersal, smell, etc. 

Trappe (1975c) agreed on the above synonymy. Phylogenetic 

analyses of LSU confirm the placement of G. cooperi among 

epigeous Geopora spp. (PB and PP 100 %, Fig 4). 

Gilkeya M.E. Sm., Trappe & Rizzo 2006 

Type: Hydnocystis compacta (Gilkeya compacta). 

This genus was erected based on a separate, although unresolved, 

position of Hydnocystis compacta in a LSU analysis of 

Genea (over six) and Genabea (one) species (H. compacta formed 

a trichotomy with Genea and Genabea), in combination with a deviating 

reddish peridium colour compared with species of Genea 

and Genabea. A similar molecular result was found by Perry et al. 

(2007) with Gilkeya and Genabea as (unsupported) successive sister 

taxa to a highly supported Genea–Humaria hemisphaerica 

clade. Further taxon sampling will hopefully resolve its position 

in a clearer way. Gilkeya and Genabea differ from Genea in having 

globose spores and the ascomata lack a basal tuft of mycelium. 

Hydnocystis Tul. & C. Tul. 1844 (syn. Protogenea) 

Type: Hydnocystis piligera. 

Burdsall (1968) gave a detailed taxonomic and nomenclatural 

account of what he considered the only species of Hydnocystis, 

H. piligera. The genus is morphologically characterized 

by its bladder-like hypogeous ascomata with a hairy, sandbinding 

outer surface and an irregular opening to the outside. 

The spores are globose, eguttulate, and an epithecium is present. 

We accept its current position in the Pyronemataceae based 

on morphological characters. No sequences are available. 

Senn-Irlet & Aeberhard (2005) reviewed the genus in a 

European context, and stated that the ectomycorrhizal status 

of this fungus is uncertain. The placement of the species 

H. clausa (Fig 7G) is disputed. Burdsall (1968) placed it in Geopora; 

others have placed it with Hydnocystis (Montecchi & Sarasini 

2000). Trappe (1975c) studied the type of Protogenea and proposed 

the above synonymy. Hydnocystis singeri from Argentina 

was discussed in Burdsall (1968). It was not accepted in the genus, 

but compared with Labyrinthomyces and Phymatomyces. It 

was thought to possibly represent a new genus. It is one of 

very few ascomycetous truffles reported from South America. 

Paurocotylis Berk. 1855 

Type: Paurocotylis pila. 

Patouillard (1903) was the first to recognize that the type 

and only recognized species belongs to Ascomycota. The bright 

red pigmentation points to a relationship with carotenoid 

members of the Pyrenomataceae. Trappe (1979: 321) wrote ‘it 

suggests an aleurioid fungus gone underground and fits nicely 

in tribe Aleurieae sensu Korf’. Patouillard (1903) indicated a 

position close to Hydnocystis, and noted that the remaining 

taxa belong elsewhere. Paurocotylis pila forms a monophyletic 

group with Stephensia, Geopyxis, and Tarzetta species (PB 99 % 

and PP 100 %, Fig 4). Originally, the microscopical similarity between 

Paurocotylis and Stephensia was noted. The exact nature 

of its ecology is far from understood. It is considered a native 

of New Zealand and an introduction to the UK (Dennis 1975). 

It is now fairly common in the northern parts of the UK, not 

least in Orkney (Eggerling 2004), where it fruits during the wintertime 

in highly disturbed soils, in vegetable plots, along 

roads, etc. As noted above, it has been suggested that the bright 

red colour may attract birds (ground-dwelling species that fulfil 

the small mammal niche in New Zealand) that may act as dispersal 

vectors in its natural setting (Castellano et al. 2004). Macromorphologically 

it resembles Glaziella (Fig 7A), which also 

has hollow ascomata, that occur more or less on top of the 

soil (see separate entry). Dennis (1975) noted that Paurocotylis 

spores in mature ascomata are cream coloured and found in


a powdery mass entangled with hyphae. Castellano et al. (2004) 

list Paurocotylis as a saprotrophic fungus, and also Dennis (1975) 

noted that no obvious mycorrhizal host was found in connection 

with the first UK find. However, the other members of 

the clade, e.g. Geopyxis carbonaria (Vra˚lstad et al. 1998) and 

Tarzetta (Tedersoo et al. 2006), have been shown to be 

ectomycorrhizal. 

Petchiomyces E. Fisch. & Mattir. 1938 

Type: Hydnocystis twaitesii (syn. Petchiomyces twaitesii). 

This genus was included in Geneaceae by Fischer (1938), 

followed by Gilkey (1954). Burdsall (1968) studied the type of 

the type species and concluded that it could not be placed in 

Geopora based on the presence of an epithecium and ornamented 

spores. Gilkey (1939) described Petchiomyces kraspedostoma 

from California, the only additional species known 

besides the type from Sri Lanka. P. kraspedostoma has an apical 

opening with stiff, incurved hairs and smooth, ellipsoid 

spores. The genus should be revised, but we ad interim accept 

its position within the Pyronemataceae. 

Phaeangium Pat. 1894 

Type: Phaeangium lefebvrei. 

This genus was sunk under Picoa by Maire (1906), but resurrected 

by Alsheikh & Trappe (1983b), a move not accepted by 

e.g. Moreno et al. (2000). Gutierrez et al. (2003) described the 

rather deviating mycorrhizae formed by Phaeangium lefebvrei 

(as Picoa) with Helianthemum species. We ad interim accept 

the genus (within Pyronemataceae). 

Sphaerosoma Klotzsch 1839 

Type: Sphaerosoma fuscescens. 

Korf (1972) placed the genus in the Ascobolaceae following 

previously published characters and was ad interim followed 

by Trappe (1979). Gamundi (1976) could not find any amyloid reaction 

in the type material and considered it a likely member of 

the Pyronemataceae (as Humariaceae tribe Otideae). Dissing & Korf 

(1980) followed Gamundi but stated ‘studies on fresh material 

are needed before the true systematic position of this genus 

can be evaluated’. They felt, based on circumstantial evidence, 

that Sphaerosoma fuscescens probably has forcible spore discharge. 

Montecchi & Sarasini (2000) cite Sphaerosoma as a synonym 

of the younger name Sphaerozone (Pezizaceae!), but it is 

accepted in e.g. Vizzini (2003) in the Pyronemataceae and ad interim 

here. Kirk et al. (2001) stated the number of species as 

three, but there are 11 names in Index Fungorum currently without 

other placement. A revision would seem to be required. 

Stephensia Tul. & C. Tul. 1845 (syn. Densocarpa, Elderia) 

Type: Stephensia bombycina (Fig 7H). 

Knapp (1951) gave a description of the type species, whereas 

Fontana & Giovannetti (1987) described its anamorph. Uecker 

(1967) reported a similar anamorph for Stephensia shanori. 

Trappe et al. (1997) published a key to the species. Our placement 

(Fig 4) is based on sequences obtained by Perry et al. 

(2007). De Vito (2003) described a new species, S. colomboi, said 

to differ from previously described species in being epigeous 

on rotten wood. Based on the published picture the wood 

more or less qualifies as soil, and some of the ascomata appear 

to be at least partly immersed. Microscopically, S. colomboi is 

apparently very close to S. bombycina, but some minor macroscopical 

differences are noted. 

Hypogeous pezizalean taxa currently not placed 

within clade A–C 

Carbomycetaceae Trappe 1971 

Trappe (1971) erected this family as a segregate from Terfeziaceae. 

It was based on ‘brown-walled asci borne in fertile 

pockets of large, inflated cells mixed with narrow, tubular 

ascogenous hyphae, and in the fertile pockets being separated 

by sterile veins of inflated cells only’. It never produces a hymenium 

in any kind of palisade. When dry the spore mass becomes 

pulverulent almost as in Elaphomyces. Eriksson (2006a) 

accepts the family in the Pezizales. 

Carbomyces Gilkey 1954 

Type: Carbomyces emergens. 

This interesting taxon, only known from three species in 

southwestern North America, is currently under study by 

K. Hansen using molecular techniques. According to Trappe 

(1971) its mycorrhizal status has not been clarified. At maturity 

the ascomata are dispersed by the wind (Trappe 1979). 

Zak & Whitford (1986) demonstrated the hypogeous nature 

of immature Carbomyces emergens, and that rodents apparently 

eat the (immature?) ascomata. 

Pezizalean truffles with unknown family placement 

(based on Eriksson (2006a) 

Delastria Tul. & C. Tul. 1843 

Type (mono): Delastria rosea. 

Not much is known about this southern European/ 

North African monotypic genus. Montecchi & Sarasini (2000) 

include it in the Terfeziaceae (here considered a synonym of 

the Pezizaceae), following Trappe (1979), and differentiate it 

from the other accepted genera in this family by the evanescent 

peridium, the pinkish colour of the gleba, 2–4-spored 

asci and a reticulate spore ornament. Castellano et al. (2004) 

accepted the genus in the Tuberaceae. DNA studies are clearly 

needed in order to clarify the position of this Tuber-like genus. 

Unplaced Ascomycota truffles (Eriksson 2006a) 

Diehliomyces Gilkey 1955 

Type (mono): Diehliomyces microsporus. 

This pest in mushroom beds (the ‘compost truffle’) is referred 

to as a ‘false truffle’ in Kirk et al. (2001), but its ascomycetous 

nature is not disputed, and it must be considered 

a genuine although rather atypical truffle. Its position is unsettled, 

but it could belong in Pezizales and parallel the case 

of Orbicula, another passively discharged, but epigeous fungus 

that has led a tumultuous life, but now has found its place in 

the Pezizales (Hansen et al. 2006). Both genera have had 

Eurotiales/Onygenales proposed as proper placements, mainly 

due to the production of small ascomata with small, globose 

spores. Unlike almost all other truffles this species is clearly 

not mycorrhizal. Diehl & Lambert (1930) introduced the 

species as Pseudobalsamia microspora after having received material 

from an Ohio grower where the pest was ‘filling his beds


and completely stopping the production of mushrooms’. It 

was later found in other American sites and later also in 

Europe (e.g. Pegler et al. 1993). It resembles many typical 

ascomycetous truffles in having a convoluted ascoma up to 

3 cm diam with an outer rind. It may have one or several openings 

to the exterior. The asci are evanescent, long stipitate 

with a sac-like, spore-containing part. Unlike typical pezizalean 

truffles, the spores are smooth and subglobose, 5–7 mm 

diam, and form an ‘olivaceous sulphur-coloured dusty mass’ 

(Diehl & Lambert 1930; Gilkey 1955). Diehl & Lambert (1930) 

also reported chlamydospores up to 13 mm diam, with a thick, 

golden-brown wall. It was grown in artificial culture, where it 

produced ascomata. These authors tentatively concluded that 

the truffle could be considered a weed in mushroom beds 

rather than a parasite of the mushrooms. Singer (1961) published 

a plate that clearly indicates the scale of a full-blown 

‘infection’ in a mushroom bed. Hawker (1959) did some developmental 

studies on Diehliomyces and concluded that the ascomata 

were not truly folded as in a typical member of the 

Tuberales, and she supported a transfer to the Eurotiales. She 

found a completely irregular arrangement of the ascogenous 

hyphae and asci, even at very early stages of development. 

Currah (1985) excluded it from the Onygenales, where Benny & 

Kimbrough (1980) had accepted it. 

Excluded truffle taxa 

Amylocarpus Curr. 1859 

Type: Amylocarpus encephaloides. 

This monotypic genus has passive spore dispersal but develops 

on intertidal wood and, although originally included in 

the Tuberaceae, it cannot be considered a truffle in the sense of 

this paper. Its current position is unsettled (e.g. Landvik et al. 

1998). It is listed as Leotiomycetidae with unclear position in 

Kirk et al. (2001) and as Helotiales incertae sedis in Eriksson (2006a). 

General information 

For general information on truffles refer, for example, to North 

American Truffling Society (www.natruffling.org/) and e.g. 

Bucquet-Grenet & Dubarry (2001). A very extensive bibliography 

on the genus Tuber can be found in Ceruti et al. (2003). 

Also, Trappe & Maser (1977) and Trappe et al. (2001) should 

be consulted. Recently a very illustrative guide to Andalucian 

truffles directed at the general public has been published (Arroyo 

et al. 2005). Dannell (1996) published a useful popular review 

in Swedish. 

Discussion 

Phylogenetic relationships of truffles within Pezizales 

Within the last 13 y molecular phylogenetic studies have gradually 

confirmed and greatly expanded our knowledge on a repeated 

evolution of ascomycetous truffles across Pezizales. 

The first study to address the controversial issue of the placement 

of Tuber was that of Landvik & Eriksson (1994a), who 

confirmed the placement within Pezizales, as predicted by 

Trappe (1979) and others. Elaphomyces was erroneously indicated 

to be nested within Pezizales (Landvik & Eriksson 

1994a; but see Landvik & Eriksson 1994b), but was later shown 

to be closely related to Eurotiales and Onygenales (Landvik et al. 

1996). The early study by Landvik & Eriksson (1994b) showed 

that Glaziella, with the highly unusual ascomatal form, was 

nested within Pezizales. Attempts to find out the exact relationship 

of Glaziella have since been carried out (see Glaziellaceae 

above). The molecular study by O’Donnell et al. (1997) 

included a large number of truffles together with a large number 

of pezizalean epigeous taxa (from lineage B) and was the 

first to discover multiple (at least five), independently derived, 

hypogeous clades within Pezizales. It resulted in new family 

assignments for several truffles and revealed a relationship 

between Tuberaceae and Helvellaceae. Percudani et al. (1999) 

focused on hypogeous Pezizales phylogeny and species 

thought to belong to the Balsamiaceae, Terfeziaceae, and Tuberaceae. 

Unfortunately they included only few epigeous taxa, 

which resulted in Cazia, Mattirolomyces, Pachyphloeus, and Terfezia 

(Terfeziaceae) erroneously formed a monophyletic group 

within Pezizaceae. A study with a broader sampling of epigeous 

pezizaceous species followed (Norman & Egger 1999) that 

showed ‘Terfeziaceae’ are not monophyletic. The study of 

epigeous-hypogeous relationships within Pezizaceae was 

further expanded (Hansen et al. 2001) and gave support for at 

least three independent origins of hypogeous forms within 

the family. Most recently, Perry et al. (2007) focusing on Pyronemataceae, 

with a large taxon sampling, suggested that the truffle 

form has arisen at least five times independently within 

that family. All of these studies used regions from the nuclear 

ribosomal genes. One multi-locus study has emerged (Hansen 

et al. 2005) substantiating the evolution of truffles within Pezizaceae 

using combined analyses of LSU rDNA and protein-coding 

genes, RNA polymerase II (RPB2), and b-tubulin. 

Several further papers dealing with the phylogeny of truffles 

(e.g. Diéz et al. 2002; Ferdman et al. 2005) have unfortunately 

only included truffles in the analyses, which have 

made it difficult to pinpoint epigeous relatives and fully 

understand their relationships and taxonomy. Vizzini (2003) 

gave the most recent review of ascomycetous truffles. 

The 55 species of truffles included in the current review occur 

in 15 separate lineages within the Pezizales: in nine lineages 

within Pezizaceae (Fig 2), in three lineages within 

Morchellaceae–Discinaceae–Helvellaceae–Tuberaceae (Fig 3) and 

in three lineages within Pyronemataceae (Fig 4). The only strictly 

hypogeous family known is currently Tuberaceae. Table 2 gives 

an overview of recent classifications of pezizalean truffles and 

an up-to-date classification based on both molecular and 

morphological characters. 

Cytology 

The number of nuclei in mature ascospores within the Pezizales 

has long been considered a character of major importance 

in defining taxa (see e.g. Berthet 1964; Korf 1973a, 

1973b and Zhang 1992a,b). It has been shown that the 

hypogeous members of the Pezizales also tend to have the 

same number of nuclei in the spores within a certain family 

or genus. Tuber is an exception, as the spores can have from 

one to 18 nuclei, although most species have four nuclei in 

each spore (Vizzini 2003). The known numbers are summarized 

in Table 3. Zhang (1992a) found Genea (two species),


Table 2 – Different recent classification schemes of 

pezizalean truffles 

Tuberales 

(Korf 1973a) 

Hypogeous 

Pezizales 

(Trappe 1979) 

Suggested 

classification of 

hypogeous Pezizales 

Elaphomycetaceae Pezizaceae Pezizaceae 

Elaphomyces Amylascus Amylascus 

Mycoclelandia Cazia 

(as Clelandia) 

Eremiomyces 

Hydnotryopsis Hydnobolites 

Peziza spp. 

Hydnotryopsis 

Tirmania 

Kalaharituber 

Mattirolomyces 

Terfeziaceae Terfeziaceae 

Mycoclelandia 

Carbomyces Choiromyces 

Pachyphloeus 

Delastria Delastria 

Peziza spp. 

Mukagomyces Hydnobolites 

Ruhlandiella 

Paradoxa Pachyphloeus 

Sphaerozone 

Picoa Terfezia 

Terfezia 

Terfezia 

Tirmania 

Tirmania 

Helvellaceae Helvellaceae 

Hydnotrya Balsamia 

Tuberaceae Dingleya Barssia 

Barssia 

Balsamia 

Fischerula Helvella astieri 

Caulocarpa 

Balsamiaceae Tuberaceae 

Choiromyces 

Balsamia Choiromyces 

Elderia 

Barssia Dingleya 

Fischerula 

Picoa Labyrinthomyces 

Lespiaultinia 

Paradoxa 

Labyrinthomyces Tuberaceae 

Reddelomyces 

Hydnobolites 

Paradoxa 

Tuber 

Hydnoplicata 

Tuber 

Hydnotrya 

Pachyphloeus 

Phymatomyces 

Piersonia 

Protogenea 

Pseudobalsamia 

Stephensia 

Tuber 


Geopora cooperi 

Hydnocystis 

Morchellaceae/ 

Discinaceae 

Gymnohydnotrya 

Hydnotrya 

Fischerula 

Leucangium 


Labyrinthomyces Genabea 

Paurocotylis 

Genea 

Petchiomyces 

Geopora cooperi 

Sphaerozone 

Gilkeya 

Stephensia 

Hydnocystis 

Paurocotylis 

Petchiomyces 

Geneaceae Geneaceae Phaeangium ¼ Picoa? 

Genea Genea Picoa 

Hydnocystis Genabea Sphaerosoma 

Petchiomyces Stephensia 

Glaziellaceae 

Glaziella 

Carbomycetaceae Carbomycetaceae 

Carbomyces Carbomyces 

The adopted classification (right column) is based on recent molecular 

phylogenies combined with morphological characters. 

Hydnobolites cerebriformis, Pachyphloeus citrinus, and Mattirolomyces 

terfezioides (as Terfezia), to be uni-nucleate. This 

led Zhang to propose the synonymy of Geneaceae with 

Pyronemataceae, and furthermore, restricted Terfeziaceae to 

uninucleate taxa (now incorporated in the Pezizaceae). The Helvellaceae 

have been considered to be defined by tetra-nucleate 

spores, but it is now evident that this number is a plesiomorphic 

character (also present in Discinaceae and some taxa of 

Tuberaceae) and thus has very limited discriminative value. 

The placement of f.ex Hydnotrya (Trappe 1979) and Choiromyces 

(e.g. Pegler et al. 1993) in the Helvellaceae was argued along 

those lines. However, molecular phylogenetic analyses of 

SSU and LSU rDNA suggest that Hydnotrya belongs to Discinaceae 

and Choiromyces to Tuberaceae (O’Donnell et al. 1997)(Fig 3). 

Ecological aspects of the truffle syndrome 

Various evolutionary processes may be involved in the truffle 

syndrome, but the most generally accepted is the avoidance 

of desiccation (e.g. Thiers 1984). The high truffle diversity in 

arid areas favours this hypothesis. Some truffles, like Tuber aestivum 

and T. melanosporum, clearly have an outer layer that renders 

protection, to both mechanical and desiccation stresses, 

but many others have very delicate fruit bodies, often formed 

in the upper soil layers, where desiccation pressures can exist, 

although of a less harsh nature than above ground. Another 

driving force could be protection against above-ground predation 

of immature ascomata. At maturity the production of pungent 

volatile compounds attracts predators of a kind the truffles 

have co-evolved with, or at least adapted to, in order to facilitate 

spore dispersal. Pacioni et al. (1990) speculated on other functions 

of the compounds, including microbial control of the micro-rhizosphere. 

Spores of hypogeous fungi probably persist for 

longer in the soil than those of wind-dispersed relatives, which 

presumably is of importance in respect to life in a xeric environment 

and as ectomycorrhiza formers (e.g. Miller et al. 1994). 

It is generally assumed that most hypogeous fungi, including 

those in the Pezizales, form ectomycorrhiza. Direct proof of 

this has not been established in all cases, but circumstantial 

evidence clearly indicates the validity of this assumption 

(e.g. Pacioni & Comandini 1999; Montecchi & Sarasini 2000). 

Early on some of these relationships were considered parasitic, 

e.g. those with Cistaceae (Singer 1961). Awameh & 

Alsheikh (1979) and Awameh et al. (1979) claimed that some 

Terfezia and Tirmania spp. form ectomycorrhiza with Helianthemum, 

but Kovács et al. (2003) have pointed out some important 

morphological discrepancies compared to typical EM 

structures casting doubt on these conclusions. Based on 

morphotyping and sequencing of ectomycorrhizal root tips, 

Tedersoo et al. (2006) identified 33 species of Pezizales to be 

ectomycorrhizal, including species of Genea, Geopora, Helvella, 

Hydnotrya, Pachyphloeus, Peziza, Sarcosphaera, and Tuber. They 

hypothesized that the ectomycorrhizal lifestyle is a precondition 

for the switch to hypogeous fruiting. Most well-known 

mycorrhizal trees would appear to be involved in associations 

with pezizalean truffles, including various members of the 

Fagaceae, Betulaceae, Pinaceae, and Myrtaceae. It is generally 

assumed that truffles prefer warm, fairly dry climates and 

calcareous soils, but this may be slightly overstated due to 

the emphasis of requirements for the edible Tuber species. 

Still, the overall species diversity appears to be highest in 

alkaline soils in warm temperate to subtropical climates. 

Desert areas around the world also have a special truffle


Table 3 – A compilation of the known number of nuclei in mature ascospores in hypogeous Pezizales 

Taxon Nuclei/ascospore Reference 

Lineage A (Pezizaceae) 1 (to 4?) 

Hydnobolites cerebriformis 1 Zhang (1992a) 

Mattirolomyces terfezioides, M. tiffanyae 1 Zhang (1992a; Healy 2003) 

Muciturbo (¼ Ruhlandiella?) 1 Warcup & Talbot (1989) 

Pachyphloeus citrinus 1 Zhang (1992a) 

Picoa juniperi 4? Donadini (1986b) 

Lineage B (Discinaceae-Tuberaceae) 1–17 

Balsamia platyspora, B. vulgaris 4 Donadini (1986b) 

Barssia oregonensis 4 Kimbrough et al. (1996) 

Choiromyces gangliformis 4 Zhang & Minter (1989a) 

Gymnohydnotrya australiana 4 Zhang & Minter (1989b) 

Helvella astieri 4 Korf (1973b) 

Hydnotrya michaelis, H. tulasnei, H. cerebriformis 4 Berthet (1982); Donadini (1986a); Zhang (1991b) 

Leucangium carthusianum 4þ Li (1997) 

Tuber rufum 1–2 Vizzini (2003) 

Tuber aestivum, T. brumale, T. excavatum, 

T. indicum, T. magnatum, T. mesentericum 

2–4 Vizzini (2003) 

Tuber maculatum 2–8 Vizzini (2003) 

Tuber borchii, T. puberulum (2–)4–17 Donadini (1987), Vizzini (2003) 

Tuber melanosporum 6–8 Parguey-Leduc et al. (1987a) 

Lineage C (Pyronemataceae) 1 (to 5?) 

Genea klotzii, G. sinensis, G. variabilis, G. verrucosa 1 Donadini (1986a); Zhang (1991a, 1992a) 

Geopora cooperi 1 Donadini (1987) 

Hydnocystis clausa, H. piligera 1 Donadini (1986a, 1987) 

Stephensia shanori 1 (to 5?) Uecker (1967) 

funga, notably including Terfezia and Tirmania species. 

Amongst pezizalean truffles only Paurocotylis is at present considered 

to be saprotrophic (Castellano et al. 2004) or suspected 

to be so (Dennis 1975). 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, the trend that started with abandoning the 

Tuberales, now robustly confirmed, has continued at the 

family level where ‘pure’ hypogeous monophyla have been reduced 

to a single taxon, the Tuberaceae. At least 15 independent 

origins of hypogeous forms within the Pezizales are 

supported by the LSU rDNA gene trees. Different types of 

hypogeous ascomata forms, infolded or chambered 

ptycothecia, solid ptycothecia and stereothecia, appear to 

have evolved multiple times independently with the linages 

A and B of Pezizales; within lineage C only infolded or chambered 

ptycothecia are present. No clear picture is shown by 

the LSU phylogenies of the hypothesis that evolution from 

an epigeous, actively dispersed form (apothecial) to a hypogeous, 

passively dispersed form (stereothecial), proceeds 

through an intermediate semi-immersed form. Nevertheless, 

several smaller clades include such forms and future studies, 

including additional molecular data and taxa, providing 

a more robust phylogeny, may likely show such a progression. 

Much has been learnt on truffle biology, taxonomy, and phylogeny 

as the Tuberales were abandoned as an independent 

order but all three fields are still very active research areas 

where many exciting results will be forthcoming in the near 

future. 

Acknowledgements 

Thanks to Jens H. Petersen for providing and editing photographs, 

and to Christian Lange, Jan Vesterholt, Johan Nitare, 

Juan Santos, and Manuel Tabarés for allowing us to use their 

pictures. Jim Trappe is thanked for help with references, advice 

on truffle matters in general and for supplying many of 

the specimens used by K.H. for molecular work. Rosanne 

Healy is thanked for providing specimens of Pachyphloeus. 

Donald H. Pfister is thanked for discussions and support of 

this work. The suggestions from two anonymous reviewers 

are greatfully acknowledged. The research contributed by 

K.H. was financially supported by an NSF grant to Donald 

H. Pfister and K.H. (DEB-0315940). T.L. thanks David Hawksworth 

for initiating this review, and he and Scott LaGreca 

are thanked for hosting ‘The New Bottles for Old Wine: fruit 

body types, phylogeny and classication’ BMS annual conservation 

and taxonomy meeting. 

references 

Abbott SP, Currah RS, 1997. The Helvellaceae: systematic revision 

and occurrence in northern and northwestern North America. 

Mycotaxon 62: 1–125. 

Alsheikh AM, Trappe JM, 1983a. Desert truffles: the genus 

Tirmania. Transactions of the British Mycological Society 81: 83–90. 

Alsheikh M, Trappe JM, 1983b. Taxonomy of Phaeangium lefebvrei, 

a desert truffle eaten by birds. Canadian Journal of Botany 61: 

1919–1925.


Alvarez IF, Parlade J, Trappe JM, 1993(1992). Loculotuber gennadii 

gen. et comb. nov. and Tuber multimaculatum sp. nov. Mycologia 

84: 926–929. 

Arroyo BM, Gómes Fernández J, Pulido Calmaestra E, 2005. Tesoros 

de Nuestros Montes. Trufas de Andalucía. Consejería de Medio 

Ambiente, Córdoba. 

Awameh MS, Alsheikh AM, 1979. Laboratory and field study of 

four kinds of truffle (kamah), Terfezia and Tirmania species, for 

cultivation. Mushroom Science 10: 507–517. 

Awameh MS, Alsheikh AM, Al-Ghawas S, 1979. Mycorrhizal synthesis 

between Helianthemum ledifolium, H. salicifolium and four 

species of the genera Terfezia and Tirmania using ascospores 

and mycelial cultures obtained from ascospore germination. 

Fourth North American Conference on Mycorrhizae, Colorado State 

University, Fort Collins. 

Beaton G, Weste G, 1977. The genus Labyrinthomyces. Transactions 

of the British Mycological Society 69: 243–247. 

Beaton G, Weste G, 1978. The genus Sphaerozone. Transactions of the 

British Mycological Society 71: 164–167. 

Beaton G, Weste G, 1982. Australian hypogeous ascomycetes. 

Transactions of the British Mycological Society 79: 455–468. 

Benny GL, Kimbrough JW, 1980. A synopsis of the orders and 

families of the Plectomycetes with keys to genera. Mycotaxon 12: 

1–91. 

Berthet P, 1963. Le nombre des noyaux dans la spore et son intérêt 

pour la systématique des discomycètes operculés. Compte 

Rendu Hebdomadaire des Séances de l‘Academie des Sciences, Paris 

256: 5185–5186. 

Berthet P, 1964. Essai biotaxinomique sur les discomycète. PhD 

thesis. Faculté des Sciences de l’Université de Lyon. 

Berthet P, 1982. Sur la position taxonomique d’Hydnotrya michaelis 

(Fischer) Trappe (¼Geoporella michaelis (Fischer) Soehner) 

(Ascomycètes). Bulletin trimestriel de la Société Mycologique de 

France 98: 75–79. 

Blaschke H, 1987. Vorkommen und Charakterisierung der Ektomykorrhizaassoziation 

Tuber puberulum mit Picea abies. zeitschrift 

für Mykologie 53: 283–288. 

Bougher NL, Lebel T, 2001. Sequestrate (truffle-like) fungi of 

Australia and New Zealand. Australian Systematic Botany 14: 

439–484. 

van Brummelen J, 1994. Problems in the systematics of Pezizales. 

In: Hawksworth DL (ed.), Ascomycete Systematics: problems 

and perspectives in the nineties. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 

303–309. 

Bucquet-Grenet S, Dubarry F, 2001. L’ABCdaire de la Truffe. Flammarion, 

Paris, (English version, The Little Book of Truffles). 

Burdsall jr HH, 1965. Operculate asci and puffing of ascospores in 

Geopora (Tuberales). Mycologia 57: 485–488. 

Burdsall jr HH, 1968. A revision of the genus Hydnocystis 

(Tuberales) and of the hypogeous species of Geopora (Pezizales). 

Mycologia 60: 496–525. 

Castellano MA, Trappe JM, Luoma DL, 2004. Sequestrate fungi. 

In: Mueller GM, Bills GF, Foster MS (eds), Biodiversity of Fungi. 

Inventory and Monitoring Methods. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 

197–213. 

Castellano MA, Trappe JM, Maser Z, Maser C, 1989. Key to Spores of 

the Genera of Hypogeous Fungi of North Temperate Forests with 

Special Reference to Animal Mycophagy. Mad River Press, 

Eureka. 

Ceruti A, Fontana A, Nosenzo C, 2003. Le Specie Europee del Genere 

Tuber: una revisione storica. Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, 

Torino. 

Chevalier G, Frochot H, 1997. La Truffe de Bourgogne. Levallois- 

Perret. 

Claridge AW, Cork SJ, Trappe JM, 2000. Diversity and habitat relationships 

of hypogeous fungi. I. Study design, sampling 

techniques and general survey results. Biodiversity and Conservation 

9: 151–173. 

Claridge AW, May TW, 1994. Mycophagy among Australian 

mammals. Australian Journal of Ecology 19: 251–275. 

Claus R, Hoppen HO, Karg H, 1981. The secret of truffles: a steroidal 

pheromone? Experientia 37: 1178–1179. 

Currah RS, 1985. Taxonomy of the Onygenales: Arthrodermataceae, 

Gymnoascaceae, Myxotrichaceae and Onygenaceae. Mycotaxon 24: 

1–216. 

Dannell E, 1996. Tryfflar i Sverige och utomlands [Truffles and 

false truffles in Sweden and abroad]. Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift 

90: 215–230. 

Dennis RWG, 1975. New or interesting British microfungi, III. Kew 

Bulletin 30: 345–365. 

De Vito A, 2003. Stephensia colomboi sp. nov. Una nuova specie 

delle Alpi Orobiche. Rivista di Micologia, Bollettino dell’ Associazione 

Micologica Bresasola 36: 221–225. 

Diehl WW, Lambert EB, 1930. A new truffle in beds of cultivated 

mushrooms. Mycologia 22: 223–226 pl. 27. 

Diéz J, Manjón JL, Martin F, 2002. Molecular phylogeny of 

the mycorrhizal desert truffles (Terfezia and Tirmania), 

host specificity and edaphic tolerance. Mycologia 94: 247–259. 

Dissing H, Korf RP, 1980. Preliminary studies in the genera Ruhlandiella, 

Sphaerosoma, and Sphaerozone (order Pezizales). Mycotaxon 

12: 287–306. 

Dissing H, Schumacher T, 1994. Pezizales. In: Hawksworth DL (ed.), 

Ascomycete Systematics: problems and perspectives in the nineties. 

Plenum Press, New York, pp. 397–401. 

Donadini JC, 1986a. Hydnotrya tulasnei (Berk.) Berk. & Br. Histologie, 

cytology, scanning. Sa place dans les Helvellacées. Documents 

Mycologique 17: 19–33. 

Donadini JC, 1986b. Les Balsaminiacées son des Helvellacées: cytology 

et scanning de Balsamia vulgaris Vitt. et de Balsamia platyspora 

Berk. et Br. Bulletin trimestriel de la Société de Mycologique de 

France 102: 373–387. 

Donadini JC, 1987. Pezizales et Tuberales (2). Le genre Tuber 

(T. borchii Vitt. et T. puberulum Berk. & Broome). Cytologie des 

spores, paraphyses et poils par coloration microscopie électronique 

(Tuber melanosporum). Documents Mycologique 18: 

47–60. 

Eckblad F-E, 1968. The genera of the operculate Discomycetes. A reevaluation 

of their taxonomy, phylogeny and nomenclature. 

Nytt Magasin for Botanikk 15: 1–191. 

Eggerling TW, 2004. Paurocotylis pila. Field Mycology 5: 41–42. 

Eriksson OE, 1982. Outline of the ascomycetes d 1982. Mycotaxon 

15: 203–248. 

Eriksson OE, 2006a. Outline of Ascomycota d 2006. Myconet 12: 

1–82. 

Eriksson OE, 2006b. Notes on ascomycete systematics. 4361. 

Pezizales. Myconet 12: 83–101. 

Eriksson OE, Winka K, 1998. Families and higher taxa of Ascomycota. 

Myconet 1: 17–24. 

Ferdman Y, Aviram S, Roth-Bejerano N, Trappe JM, Kagan-Zur V, 

2005. Phylogenetic studies of Terfezia pfeilii and Choiromyces 

echinulatus (Pezizales) support new genera for southern African 

truffles: Kalaharituber and Eremiomyces. Mycological Research 

109: 237–245. 

Fischer E, 1897. Tuberineae, Plectascineae. In: Engler A, Prantl K 

(eds), Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Verlag von Wilhelm 

Engelmann, Leipzig, pp. 278–320. 

Fischer E, 1938. Tuberineae. In: Engler A, Prantl K (eds). Die natürlichen 

Pflanzenfamilien. Part 5b, 2nd edn, Vol. III, Verlag von 

Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig. 

Fogel R, States J, 2002. Materials for a hypogeous mycoflora of 

the Great Basin and adjacent cordilleras of the Western 

United States. VIII: Pachyphloeus lateritius sp. nov. and Cazia 

quercicola sp. nov. (Ascomycota, Pezizales). Mycotaxon 81: 

83–89. 

Fogel R, States J, 2003. Materials for a hypogeous mycoflora of the 

Great Basin and adjacent cordilleras of the Western United


States. IX. A new name for Peziza quercicola Fogel & States 

(Ascomycota, Pezizales). Mycotaxon 88: 155–156. 

Fogel R, Trappe JM, 1978. Fungus consumption (mycophagy) by 

small animals. Northwest Science 52: 1–31. 

Fontana A, Giovannetti G, 1987. The anamorph of Stephensia 

bombycina. Mycotaxon 29: 37–44. 

Fries E, 1821–1832. Systema mycologicum I–III & Elenchus Fungorum 

I–II. Lund/Greifswald. 

Galán R, Moreno G, 1998. Ruhlandiella beroliensis, an exotic species 

in Europe. Mycotaxon 68: 265–271. 

Gamundi I, 1976 [1975]. Acerca de los géneros Boudiera Cooke y 

Sphaerosoma Klotsch (Fungi, Pezizales). Sydowia 28: 339–352. 

Gilkey HM, 1939. Tuberales of North America. Oregon State Monographs. 

Studies in Botany 1: 1–63. 

Gilkey HM, 1954. Tuberales. North American Flora 2 (1): 1–36. 

Gilkey HM, 1955 [1954]. Taxonomic notes on Tuberales. Mycologia 

46: 783–793. 

Gutierrez A, Morte A, Honrubia M, 2003. Morphological characterization 

of the mycorrhiza formed by Helianthemum almeriense 

Pau with Terfezia claveryi Chatin and Picoa lefebvrei (Pat.) 

Maire. Mycorrhiza 13: 299–307. 

Hansen K, 2000. Muciturbo Talbot. In: Eriksson O (ed.), Notes on 

ascomycete systematics nos 2940–3127(3015). Myconet 5: 17–18. 

Hansen K, Læssøe T, Pfister DH, 2001. Phylogenetics of the 

Pezizaceae, with an emphasis on Peziza. Mycologia 93: 958–990. 

Hansen K, LoBuglio KF, Pfister DH, 2005. Evolutionary relationships 

of the cup-fungus genus Peziza and Pezizaceae inferred 

from multiple nuclear genes: RPB2, b-tubulin, and LSU rDNA. 

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 36: 1–23. 

Hansen K, Perry BA, Pfister DH, 2006 [2005]. Phylogenetic origins 

of two cleistothecial fungi, Orbicula parietina and Lasiobolidium 

orbiculoides, within the operculate discomycetes. Mycologia 97: 

1023–1033. 

Hansen K, Pfister DH, 2007. Systematics of the Pezizomycetes d the 

operculate discomycetes. Mycologia 98: 1031–1041. 

Hansen K, Trappe JA, 2002. Terfeziaceae E. Fisch. In: Eriksson OE, 

Baral HO, Currah RS, Hansen K, Kurtzman CP, Laessøe T, 

Rambold G (eds), Notes on ascomycete systematics nos. 3403- 

3579(3471). Myconet 8: 33–34. 

Hansen L, Knudsen H (eds), 2000. Nordic Macromycetes 1. Ascomycetes. 

Nordsvamp, Copenhagen. 

Harrington FA, Pfister DH, Potter D, Donoghue MJ, 1999. Phylogenetic 

studies within the Pezizales. I. 18S rRNA sequence data 

and classification. Mycologia 91: 41–50. 

Hawker LE, 1954. British hypogeous fungi. Philosophical Transactions 

of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 237: 

429–546. 

Hawker LE, 1959. The development of the fruit-body of Diehliomyces 

microsporus (Diehl and Lambert) Gilkey (syn. Pseudobalsamia 

microspora Diehl and Lambert). Transactions of the 

Botanical Society of Edinburgh 38: 71–75. 

Hawksworth DL, Sutton BC, Ainsworth GC (eds), 1983. Ainsworth & 

Bisby’s Dictionary of the Fungi, 7th edn. Commonwealth Mycological 

Institute, Kew. 

He XY, Li HM, Wang Y, 2004. Tuber zhongdianense sp. nov. from 

China. Mycotaxon 90: 213–216. 

Healy RA, 2003. Mattirolomyces tiffanyae, a new truffle from Iowa, 

with ultrastructural evidence for its classification in the 

Pezizaceae. Mycologia 95: 765–772. 

de Hoog GS, Göttlich E, Platas G, Genilloud, Leotta G, van 

Brummelen J, 2005. Evolution, taxonomy and ecology of the 

genus Thelebolus in Antarctica. Studies in Mycology 51: 33–76. 

Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F, 2001. MRBAYES: Bayesian inference 

of phylogeny. Bioinformatics 17: 754–755. 

Janex-Favre MC, Parguey-Leduc A, 1985. Les asques et les ascospores 

du Terfezia claveryi Ch. (Tubérales). Cryptogamie. Mycologie 6:87–99. 

Janex-Favre MC, Parguey-Leduc A, 2002. Particularités des ascocarpes 

et de l’hyménium des truffes (Ascomycètes). I. 

Développement et structure des ascocarpes. Cryptogamie. Mycologie 

23: 103–128. 

Janex-Favre MC, Parguey-Leduc A, 2003. Particularités des ascocarpes 

et de l’hymenium des truffes (Ascomycetes). II. Organisation 

de l’hymenium det asques. Bulletin de la Société 

Mycologique de France 119: 31–59. 

Janex-Favre MC, Parguey-Leduc A, Riousset L, 1988. L’ascocarpe 

hypogé d’une terfez française (Terfezia leptoderma Tul., Tubérales, 

Discomycètes). Bulletin trimestriel de la Société de Mycologique 

de France 104: 145–178. 

Kimbrough JW, 1994. Septal ultrastructure and ascomycete systematics. 

In: Hawksworth DL (ed.), Ascomycete Systematics: 

problems and perspectives in the nineties. Plenum Press, New 

York, pp. 127–141. 

Kimbrough JW, Li LT, Wu CG, 1996. Ultrastructural evidence for 

the placement of the truffle Barssia in the Helvellaceae (Pezizales). 

Mycologia 88: 38–46. 

Kimbrough JW, Wu C-G, Gibson JL, 1991. Ultrastructural evidence 

for a phylogenetic linkage of the truffle genus Hydnobolites to 

the Pezizaceae (Pezizales, Ascomycetes). Botanical Gazette 152: 

408–420. 

Kirk PM, Cannon PF, David JC, Stalpers JA (eds), 2001. 

Ainsworth & Bisby’s Dictionary of the Fungi. CABI Publishing, 

Wallingford. 

Kishino H, Hasegawa M, 1989. Evaluation of the maximum likelihood 

estimate of the evolutionary tree topologies from DNA 

sequence data, and the branching order in Hominoidea. Journal 

of Molecular Evolution 29: 170–179. 

Knapp A, 1950. Die europäischen Hypogaeen-Gattungen und ihre 

Gattungstypen. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Pilzkunde 28: 29–42 

101–118, 153–179. 


Gattungstypen. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Pilzkunde 29: 65–92 

133–150. 


Gattungstypen. Schlussbetrachtung. Schweizerische Zeitschrift 

für Pilzkunde 30: 33–43. 

Korf RP, 1972. Synoptic key to the genera of the Pezizales. Mycologia 

64: 937–994. 

Korf RP, 1973a. Discomycetes and Tuberales. In: Ainsworth GC, 

Sparrow FK, Sussman AS (eds), The Fungi: an advanced treatise, 

Vol. IVA. Academic Press, New York, pp. 249–319. 

Korf RP, 1973b. Sparassoid ascomata in Pezizales and Tuberales. 

Repertorium Tottori Mycological Institute 10: 389–403. 

Kovács GM, Jakucs E, 2006. Morphological and molecular 

comparison of white truffle ectomycorrhizae. Mycorrhiza 16: 

567–574. 

Kovács GM, Jakucs E, Bagi I, 2007. Identification of host plants 

and description of sclerotia of the truffle Mattirolomyces terfezioides. 

Mycological Progress 6(1): 19–26, doi: 10.1007/s11557- 

006-0520-y. 

Kovács GM, Vágvölgyi C, Oberwinkler F, 2003. In vitro interaction 

of the truffle Terfezia terfezioides with Robinia pseudoacacia and 

Helianthemum ovatum. Folia Microbiologica 48: 369–378. 

Landvik S, 1996. Neolecta, a fruit-body-producing genus of the 

basal ascomycetes, as shown by SSU and LSU rDNA sequences. 

Mycological Research 100: 199–202. 

Landvik S, Egger KN, Schumacher T, 1997. Towards a subordinal 

classification of the Pezizales (Ascomycota): phylogenetic analyses 

of SSU rDNA sequences. Nordic Journal of Botany 17: 403–418. 

Landvik S, Eriksson OE, 1994a. Relationships of Tuber, Elaphomyces 

and Cyttaria (Ascomycotina), inferred from 18S rDNA 

studies. In: Hawksworth DL (ed.), Ascomycete Systematics: 

problems and perspectives in the nineties. Plenum Press, New 

York, pp. 225–231. 

Landvik S, Eriksson OE, 1994b. Relationship of the genus Glaziella 

(Ascomycota) inferred from 18S rDNA sequences. Systema Ascomycetum 

13: 13–23.


Landvik S, Kristiansen R, Schumacher T, 1998. Phylogenetic and 

structural studies in the Thelebolaceae (Ascomycota). Mycoscience 

39: 49–56. 

Landvik S, Shailer NFJ, Eriksson OE, 1996. SSU rDNA sequence 

support for a close relationship between the Elaphomycetales 

and the Eurotiales and Onygenales. Mycoscience 37: 

237–241. 

Lange M, 1956. Danish hypogeous macromycetes. Dansk Botanisk 

Arkiv 16: 1–84. 

Lawrynowicz M, 1988. Workowce (Ascomycetes), Jeleniakowe 

(Elaphomycetales), Truflowe (Tuberales). In: Grzyby (Mycota) Vol 18. 

PanstwoweWydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa-Kraków. 

Lawrynowicz M, 1991 [1989–90]. Chorology of European 

hypogeous ascomycetes. II. Tuberales. Acta Mycologici 26: 

7–75. 

Li L-T, 1997. Ultrastructural studies of Leucangium carthusianum 

(hypogeous Pezizales). International Journal of Plant Sciences 158: 

189–197. 

Li L-T, Kimbrough JW, 1994. Ultrastructural evidence for a relationship 

of the truffle genus Genea to Otideaceae (Pezizales). 

International Journal of Plant Sciences 155: 235–243. 

Li L-T, Kimbrough JW, 1995. Septal ultrastructure in three species 

of Tuber (hypogeous Pezizales). International Journal of Plant 

Sciences 156: 849–856. 

Maire RCJE, 1906. Notes mycologiques. Annales Mycologici 4: 329– 

335 1 fig. 

Malençon G, 1938. Les truffes européennes. Historique, morphogénie, 

organographie, classification, culture. Revue Mycologique 

3 ((N.S.) Méacutem 1): 1–92. 

Malençon G, 1973. Champignons hypogés du nord de l’Afrique. I. 

Ascomycétes. Persoonia 7: 261–288. 

Marasas WFO, Trappe JM, 1973. Notes on southern African 

Tuberales. Bothalia 11: 139–141. 

Marin AB, Libbey LM, Morgan ME, 1984. Truffles: on the scent of 

a buried treasure. Mclilvainea 6: 34–38. 

Maser C, Trappe JM, Nussbaum RA, 1978. Fungal–small mammal 

interrelationships with emphasis on Oregon coniferous forests. 

Ecology 59: 799–809. 

Mattirolo O, 1928. Secondo elenco dei ‘funghi ipogaei’ raccolti 

nelle foreste di Vallombrosa (1900–1926). Nuovo Giornale Botanico 

Italiano 34: 1343–1358. 

Mello A, Murat C, Vizzini A, Gavazza V, Bonfante P, 2005. Tuber 

magnatum Pico, a species of limited geographical distribution: 

its genetic diversity inside and outside a truffle ground. Environmental 

Microbiology 7: 55–65. 

Mello A, Vizzini A, Longato S, Rollo F, Bonfante P, Trappe JM, 2000. 

Tuber borchii versus Tuber maculatum: neotype studies and DNA 

analyses. Mycologia 92: 326–331. 

Miller SL, Torres P, McClean TM, 1994. Persistence of basidiospores 

and sclerotia of ectomycorrhizal fungi and Morchella in 

soil. Mycologia 86: 89–95. 

Montecchi A, Lazzari G, 1993. Atlante Fotografico di Funghi Ipogei. 

Associazione Micologica Bresadola, Trento. 

Montecchi A, Sarasini M, 2000. Funghi Ipogei d’Europa. Associazione 

Micologica Bresadola, Fondazione Centro Studi Micologici, 

Trento. 

Moreno G, Déz J, Manjón JL, 2000. Picoa lefebvrei and Tirmania nivea, 

two rare hypogeous fungi from Spain. Mycological Research 104: 

378–381. 

Nannfeldt JA, 1946. En ny svensk hypogé, tryffeln Geopora schackii 

P. Henn [A new Swedish hypogeous fungus, Geopora schackii 

P. Henn.]. Friesia 3: 177–188. 

Norman JE, Egger KN, 1999. Molecular phylogenetic analysis of 

Peziza and related genera. Mycologia 91: 820–829. 

Nylander JAA, 2004. MrModeltest 2.2 Program distributed by the 

author. Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University. 

O’Donnell K, Cigelnik E, Weber NS, Trappe JM, 1997. Phylogenetic 

relationships among ascomycetous truffles and the true and 

false morels inferred from 18S and 28S ribosomal DNA 

sequence analysis. Mycologia 89: 48–65. 

Pacioni G, Bellina-Agostinone C, D’Antonio M, 1990. Odour 

composition of the Tuber melanosporum complex. Mycological 

Research 94: 201–204. 

Pacioni G, Comandini O, 1999. Tuber. In: Cairney JWG, 

Chambers SM (eds), Ectomycorrhizal Fungi. Key Genera in Profile. 

Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 163–186. 

Palfner G, Agerer R, 1998a. Balsamia alba Harkness þ Pinus jeffreyi 

Grev. & Balf. Descriptions of Ectomycorrhizae 3: 1–6. 

Palfner G, Agerer R, 1998b. Leucangium carthusianum (Tul.) Paol. 

(¼ Picoa carthusiana Tul. & Tul.) þ Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) 

Franco. Descriptions of Ectomycorrhizae 3: 37–42. 

Parguey-Leduc A, Janex-Favre MC, Montant C, 1987a. Formation 

et evolution des ascospores de Tuber melanosporum (Truffe 

noire du Périgord, Discomycètes). Canadian Journal of Botany 65: 

1491–1503. 

Parguey-Leduc A, Janex-Favre MC, Montant C, 1990. L’appareil 

sporophytique et les asques du Tuber melanosporum Vitt. 

(Truffe noire du Périgord, Discomycètes). Cryptogamie Mycologie 

11: 47–68. 

Parguey-Leduc A, Montant C, Kulifaj M, 1987b. Morphologie et 

structure de l’ascocarpe adulte du Tuber melanosporum Vitt. 

(Truffe noire du Périgord, Discomycetes). Cryptogamie. Mycologie 

8: 173–202. 

Patouillard N, 1903. Note sur le genre Paurocotylis Berk. Bulletin de 

la Société de Mycologique de France 19: 339–341. 

Pegler DN, Spooner BM, Young TWK, 1993. British Truffles. 

A Revision of British Hypogeous Fungi. Royal Botanic Gardens, 

Kew. 

Percudani R, Trevisi A, Zambonelli A, Ottonello S, 1999. Molecular 

phylogeny of truffles (Pezizales: Terfeziaceae, Tuberaceae) derived 

from nuclear rDNA sequence analysis. Molecular Phylogenetics 

and Evolution 13: 169–180. 

Perry BA, Hansen K, Pfister DH, 2007. A phylogenetic overview of 

the family Pyronemataceae (Ascomycota, Pezizales). Mycological 

Research 111: 549–571. doi: 10.1016/j.mycres.2007.03.014. 

Pfister D, 1984. Genea–Jafneadelphus d a tuberalean–pezizalean 

connection. Mycologia 76: 170–172. 

Rauscher T, Agerer R, Chevalier G, 1995. Ektomykorrhizen 

von Tuber melanosporum, Tuber mesentericum und Tuber 

rufum (Tuberales) an Corylus avellana. Nova Hedwigia 61: 

281–322. 

Roux C, Sejalon-Delmas N, Martins M, Parguey-Leduc A, 

Dargent R, Becard G, 1999. Phylogenetic relationships between 

European and Chinese truffles based on parsimony and 

distance analysis of ITS sequences. FEMS Microbiology Letters 

180: 147–155. 

Senn-Irlet B, Aeberhard H, 2005. Der Pilz des Monats (5). Hydnocystis 

piligera Tulasne et C. Tulasne 1844. Schweizerische Zeitschrift 

für Pilzkunde 83: 98–103. 

Shimodaira H, Hasegawa M, 1999. Multiple comparisons of 

log-likelihoods with applications to phylogenetic inference. 

Molecular Biology and Evolution 16: 1114–1116. 

Singer R, 1961. Mushrooms and Truffles. Botany, Cultivation, and 

Utilization. Interscience Publications, London. 

Smith ME, Trappe JM, Rizzo DM, 2006. Genea, Genabea and Gilkeya 

gen. nov.: ascomata and ectomycorrhiza formation in a 

Quercus woodland. Mycologia 98: 699–716. 

Swofford DL, 2002. PAUP*. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony 

(*and other methods). Version 4. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, 

MA. 

Szemere L, 1965. Die Unterirdischen Pilze des Karpatenbeckens, fungi 

hypogaei territorii Carpato-Pannonici. Académiai Kiadó, 

Budapest. 

Taylor FW, Thamage DM, Baker N, Roth-Bejerano N, Kagan-Zur V, 

1995. Notes on the Kalahari Desert truffle, Terfezia pfeilii. 

Mycological Research 99: 874–878.


Tedersoo L, Hansen K, Perry BA, Kjøller R, 2006. Molecular and 

morphological diversity of pezizalean ectomycorrhiza. New 

Phytologist 170: 581–596. 

Thiers HD, 1984. The secotioid syndrome. Mycologia 76: 1–8. 

Trappe JM, 1971. A synoptis of the Carbomycetaceae and Terfeziaceae 

(Tuberales). Transactions of the British Mycological Society 57: 85–92. 

Trappe JM, 1975a. The genus Amylascus (Tuberales). Transactions of 

the British Mycological Society 65: 496–499. 

Trappe JM, 1975b. The genus Fischerula (Tuberales). Mycologia 67: 

934–941. 

Trappe JM, 1975c. Generic synonyms in the Tuberales. Mycotaxon 2: 

109–122. 

Trappe JM, 1977. Biogeography of hypogeous fungi: trees, mammals, 

and continental drift. 2nd International Mycological 

Congress, Tampa, FL. 

Trappe JM, 1979. The orders, families, and genera of hypogeous 

Ascomycotina (truffles and their relatives). Mycotaxon 9: 297–340. 

Trappe JM, 1989. Cazia flexiascus gen. et sp. nov., a hypogeous 

fungus in the Helvellaceae. Memoirs of the New York Botanical 

Garden 49: 336–338. 

Trappe JM, 2001. Taxonomic and nomenclatural problems in the 

genus Tuber. Actes du V e Congrès International Science et Culture 

de la Truffe et de autres Champignons Hypoges Comestibles 4–6 

Mars 1999, Aix-en-Provence. IPSO, Paris. 

Trappe JM, Beaton G, 1984. Mycoclelandia nom. nov. (hypogeous 

Ascomycotina), a replacement for the pre-empted generic 

name Clelandia. Transactions of the British Mycological Society 

83: 535–536. 

Trappe JM, Bushnell W, Castellano MA, 1997. NATS truffle and 

truffle-like fungi 6: Stephensia bynumii sp.nov. (Ascomycota), 

with a key to the species of Stephensia. Mycotaxon 64: 431–435. 

Trappe JM, Castellano MA, 1992 [1991]. Keys to the genera of 

truffles (Ascomycetes). Mcilvainea 10: 47–65. 

Trappe JM, Castellano MA, Claridge A, 2001. Continental drift, 

climate, mycophagy and the biogeography of the hypogeous 

fungi. Actes du V e Congrès International Science et Culture de 

La Truffe et de autres Champignons Hypoges Comestibles, 4–6 

Mars 1999, Aix-en-Provence. IPSO, Paris. 

Trappe JM, Castellano MA, Malajczuk N, 1992. Australasian trufflelike 

fungi. II. Labyrinthomyces, Dingleya and Reddellomyces gen. 

nov. (Ascomycotina). Australian Systematic Botany 5: 597–611. 

Trappe JM, Claridge AW, 2006. Australasian sequestrate fungi 17: 

the genus Hydnoplicata (Ascomycota, Pezizaceae) resurrected. 

Australasian Mycologist 25: 33–36. 

Trappe JM, Jumpponen AM, Cázares E, 1996. Nats truffle and 

truffle-like fungi 5: Tuber lyonii (¼ T. texense), with a key to 

spiny-spored Tuber species group. Mycotaxon 60: 365–372. 

Trappe JM, Maser C, 1977. Ectomycorrhizal fungi: interactions of 

mushrooms and truffles with beasts and trees. In: Walthers T 

(ed.), Mushrooms and Man. An Interdisciplinary Approach to 

Mycology. Linn-Benton Community College, Albany, Oregon, 

pp. 165–179. 

Trappe JM, Sandberg WJ, 1977. Terfezia gigantea (Tuberales) in 

North America. Mycologia 69: 433–437. 

Tulasne L-R, Tulasne C, 1851. Fungi Hypogaei. Paris. 

Uecker FA, 1967. Stephensia shanori. I. Cytology of the ascus and 

other observations. Mycologia 59: 819–832. 

Urban A, Plattner-Neuner I, Krisai-Greilhuber I, Haselwandtner K, 

2002. Detection of an anamorph of Tuber dryophilum: molecular 

and immunological evidence. 7th International Mycological 

Congress, Oslo. 

Verbeken A, Walleyn R, 2003. Una checklist dei funghi ipogei e 

secozioidi dell’Africa tropicale. Bolletino del Gruppo Micologico 

G. Bresadola 46 (n.s.): 87–96. 

Vittadini C, 1831. Monographia Tuberacearum. Milano. 

Vizzini A, 2003. Il genere Tuber: la sua posizione nelle Pezizales 

(origine dei taxa ipogei nelle Pezizales). Bolletino del Gruppo Micologico 

G. Bresadola 46 (n.s.): 97–153. 

Vra˚ lstad T, Holst-Jensen A, Schumacher T, 1998. The post-fire 

discomycete Geopyxis carbonaria (Ascomycota) is a biotrophic 

associate with Norway spruce (Picea abies) in nature. Molecular 

Ecology 7: 609–616. 

Warcup JH, Talbot PHB, 1989. Muciturbo, a new genus of hypogeous 

ectomycorrhizal ascomycetes. Mycological Research 92: 95–100. 

Weber NS, Trappe JM, Denison WC, 1997. Studies on western 

American Pezizales. Collecting and describing ascomata d 

macroscopic features. Mycotaxon 61: 153–176. 

Wedén C, Danell E, Tibell L, 2005. Species recognition in the truffle 

genus Tuber d the synonyms Tuber aestivum and Tuber uncinatum. 

Environmental Microbiology 7: 1535–1546. 

Zak J, Whitford WG, 1986. The occurrence of a hypogeous ascomycete 

in the northern Chihuahuan desert. Mycologia 78: 

840–841. 

Zambonelli A, Salomoni S, Pisi A, 1993. Caratterizzazione anatomomorfologica 

delle micorrize di Tuber spp. suQuercus pubescens 

Willd. Micologia Italiana 3: 73–90. 

Zambonelli A, Iotti M, Amicucci A, Pisi A, 1999. Caratterizzazione 

anatomo-morfologica delle micorrize di Tuber maculatum 

Vittad. su Ostrya carpinifolia Scop. Micologia Italiana 28: 

29–35. 

Zhang B-C, 1991a. Taxonomic status of Genabea with two new 

species of Genea (Pezizales). Mycological Research 95: 986–994. 

Zhang B-C, 1991b. Morphology, cytology and taxonomy of 

Hydnotrya cerebriformis (Pezizales). Mycotaxon 42: 155–162. 

Zhang B-C, 1992a. Nuclear numbers in Geneaceae and Terfeziaceae 

ascospores and their taxonomic value. Systema Ascomycetum 

11: 31–37. 

Zhang B-C, 1992b. Ascospore nuclear number and taxonomy of 

truffles. Micologia e Vegetatione Mediterranea 7: 47–53. 

Zhang B-C, Minter DW, 1988. Two new species of Labyrinthomyces 

from New Zealand, with notes on the taxonomy of the genus. 

Systema Ascomycetum 7: 45–55. 

Zhang B-C, Minter DW, 1989a. Morphology, cytology and 

taxonomy of Choiromyces gangliiformis (Ascomycotina, Pezizales). 

Mycological Research 92: 91–94. 

Zhang B-C, Minter DW, 1989b. Gymnohydnotrya: a new hypogeous 

ascomycete genus from Australia. Mycological Research 

92: 192–198.

Truffle trouble: what happened to the Tuberales?

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?