|
merged into |
|
I've not come across any discussion. However, there are quite a number of entries in that recent classification that I think require more elaboration. I am not convinced this particular family-level equivalence is fully supported by the data. It certainly isn't in the case of Clavulinaceae = Cantharellaceae/Hydnaceae from the data I have analyzed. Note their analysis did not include any species of Clavulina. Ditto a number of other assertions in the paper.
These seem to date back to something in a book I haven't been able to access this weekend: http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55318-9_14
Relatively few genera in the order but substantial unsampled diversity and not much coordination in the analysis. For what it's worth I pulled together a multi-gene set on the little available data and put it against this record ...
https://inaturalist.org/observations/1045731
Hydnaceae/Cantharellaceae remains unresolved in my view, but I guess the entire clade including Clavulinaceae could be lumped under Hydnaceae. It just doesn't 'feel right'. But happy to go with flow.
@cooperj, has this been accepted at this point?