cies are continually being described, even in
relatively well-studied areas such as western
Europe (Bernicchia et al. 2010 ; Spirin et al.
2012 ; Vampola and Vlasak 2012 ), and the num-
ber of species known only from environmental
sampling and studies of endophytic commu-
nities has increased dramatically in recent
years (Fro ̈hlich-Nowoisky et al. 2009 , 2012 ;
Hallenberg et al. 2008 ). Polyporales contains
conspicuous bracket fungi, including perennial
“conks” (e.g.,Ganoderma applanatum,Fomes
fomentarius), as well as more cryptic effused
(resupinate) forms, which often fruit on the
undersides of logs (Fig.14.6b–d). Other species
have pileate-stipitate fruiting bodies or multi-
ple flabelliform lobes (e.g.,Sparassis,Hydnopo-
lyporus) (Fig.14.6a, e, f). The hymenophore is
frequently poroid (e.g.,Polyporus) but can also
be hydnoid (Steccherinum), lamellate (Tra-
metes[Lenzites]betulina), merulioid (Phlebia),
or smooth (Phanerochaete). No gasteroid taxa
are known, butLentinus tigrinushas a naturally
occurring secotioid form in addition to the
typical agaricoid form (Hibbett et al. 1994 ). A
few species produce underground sclerotia
(e.g., Lignosus, Polyporus, Wolfiporia). The
order has varied hyphal anatomy, including
monomitic forms (with only generative hyphae,
e.g.,Ceriporia), as well as dimitic and trimitic
forms (with thick-walled skeletal or binding
hyphae) (Gilbertson and Ryvarden 1986 ). No
morphological synapomorphy characterizes
the Polyporales, and the most common mor-
phological types described previously also
occur in other orders of Agaricomycetes.
Ecological diversity: along with
members of Hymenochaetales and Russulales,
members of this order dominate wood-decay
communities in terrestrial ecosystems. A few
species act as plant pathogens, causing timber
damage (e.g., species ofGanoderma,Fomitop-
sis, andWolfiporia), and others are major decay
agents of structural timber (e.g.,Antrodia).
Wood decayers in Polyporales can be divided
into two major groups: white-rot species, which
are able to decay both lignin and cellulosic
compounds, and brown-rot species, which
remove cellulose and hemicellulose without sig-
nificant lignin degradation (Worrall et al.
1997 ).P. chrysosporiumandP. placenta, which
are the model systems for white-rot and brown-
rot biochemistry (respectively), are both in the
Polyporales (Martinez et al. 2004 , 2009 ). No
mycorrhizal taxa are known in the order.
Many members of Polyporales are commonly
isolated as part of the endophytic communities
in woody tissues and roots, and though several
ecological roles have been proposed for these
fungi, from latent saprotrophs to protective
agents, their true function remains largely
unknown (Porras-Alfaro et al. 2011 ).
Systematics: approximately 150 genera and
40 legitimate family names are available for use
in Polyporales (Larsson2007b; Ryvarden 1991 ),
but there is no broadly accepted consensus
infraordinal classification. Recent monographs
on Polyporales include those of Nun ̃ez and
Ryvarden ( 2000 ) on East Asian polypores,
Ryvarden ( 2004 ) on neotropical polypores
(Ganodermataceae), Niemela ̈ ( 2005 )and
Bernicchia ( 2005 )onEuropeanpolypores,and
Bernicchia et al. ( 2010 ) on European corticioid
fungi.
The monophyly of Polyporales was not well
supported in analyses of rRNA gene sequences
(Binder et al. 2005 ; Larsson2007b). However,
analyses adding single-copy protein-coding
genes (Garcia-Sandoval et al. 2011 ; Justo and
Hibbett 2011 ; Matheny et al. 2007 ; Miettinen
et al. 2012 ; Sjo ̈kvist et al. 2012 ) and genome-
based phylogenetic analyses (Binder et al. 2013 ;
Floudas et al. 2012 ) have strongly supported the
monophyly of the order. The sister group of
Polyporales is not known with confidence; in
the studies just mentioned, Corticiales, Gloeo-
phyllales, Russulales, and Thelephorales usu-
ally seem to be closely related to Polyporales,
but relationships between these orders remain
in need of further study.
The studies of Binder et al. ( 2005 , 2013 )
provide broad overviews of the major lineages
of Polyporales based on taxon-rich sampling of
rRNA genes in combination withrpb1,rpb2,
andtef1sequences, as well as gene-dense phy-
logenomic analyses. Four major groups have
been informally labeled as theAntrodia, core
polyporoid, phlebioid, and “residual” clades,
the latter being more a mixed bag of taxa that
did not fit in the other clades. Larsson (2007b)
and Miettinen et al. ( 2012 ) sought to apply398 D.S. Hibbett et al.