Phylogenetic Analyses

In the phylogenetic analysis, the combined ITS + LSU + TEF1-α dataset included sequences from 28 specimens of the Hydnaceae family, including the outgroup of the family Clavulinaceae. The alignment resulted in a total of 3406 characters, including gaps (ITS: 1-1095; LSU: 1096–2567; TEF1-α: 2568–3406), of which 1800 were constant, 1606 variable and 1322 informative parsimony. The following evolutionary models were used for the analysis: HKY + G for ITS; GTR + G for LSU; and TIMef + G for TEF1-α. The ML and BI analyses produced trees with similar topologies; therefore, only the ML tree is shown (Fig. 1). The Cantharellus species recovered in this study formed a clade with a high support value (BS = 100, PP = 1), while C. guyanensis emerged as a sister group to the other species in the genus, also with a strong support value (BS = 99, PP = 1).

Fig. 1The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Phylogenetic tree obtained from the ITS + LSU + TEF1-α genetic markers . The topology of the tree is from the maximum likelihood analysis and the sequence generated in this study is indicated in bold. The numbers on the branches indicate the bootstrap frequency (BS) / posterior probability (PP) values

Morphological Analysis

Cantharellus guyanensis Mont., Annls Sci. Nat., Bot. ser. 4 1: 107 (1854) (Figs. 2 and 3).

Fig. 2The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Cantharellus guyanensis. A-B. Top and side view of the basidiomata. C. Context. D. Hymenophore

Fig. 3The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Microstructures of Cantharellus guyanensis. A. Basidiospores. B. Basidia, basidioles and adjacent cells of the subhymenium.C-D. Terminal elements of the pileipellis

Material examined: BRAZIL - Distrito Federal, Brasília, Serrinha do Paranoá, 7°21′50″ S 39°19′45″ W, 31 March 2024, F.N. Vieira s/n (HUEG17234; JPB68575).

Basidiomata gregarious, small, fleshy. Pileus up to 40 mm in diam., mostly concave and widely depressed to shallowly infundibuliform; surface smooth to squamulose-furfuraceous, waxy or dry, slightly shiny, reddish orange (7A8) to yellowish red (8A8), becoming paler in older specimens; margin entire, involute in young basidiomata then incurved to slightly even, smooth, wavy, frequently lobed; context thick at centre; context thick at centre, yellowish orange (4B7), unchanging. Hymenophore formed by close to subclose folds, that are dichotomously forked and anastomosing (about 1–1.5 mm broad), decurrent, pale cream to cream then yellowish spots; edge smooth, even and obtuse. Stipe up to 16.7 × 5.3 mm, mostly tapering downward, sometimes very stout with somewhat similar width in all length; surface smooth, glabrous, cream to yellowish, unchanging even when handled; context solid, yellowish, unchanging. Odor very pleasant and conspicuously fruity when fresh; farinose in dried state; taste astringent but agreeable in fresh specimens. Spore print not obtained.

Basidiospores (6.8–)7–9(–9.8) × 4.5–5.5(–6) µm, L = 8 μm; W = 5 μm; Q = (1.33–)1.38–1.87 (–1.93); Q = 1.61, inamyloid, hyaline in 3% KOH, ellipsoid to elongate, reniform in side view, smooth, thin-walled, filled with small guttules; hilar appendix prominent, sublateral. Basidia 50–60 × 6.5–7.5 μm, slender-clavate, colorless, 4–5–6-spored, clamped. Basidioles abundant, subcylindric to nearly narrowly clavate. Hymenial cystidia absent. Subhymenium containing inflated elements 6.5–9.5 μm wide, from where basidia and basidioles arise, colorless, mostly thin-walled. Hymenophoral trama with strongly interwoven hyphae 3–7.5 μm wide, repeatedly branched, colorless, thin-walled. Pileus context consisting of loosely interwoven hyphae. Pileipellis composed of some densely packed and prostate hyphae, sometimes periclinally interwoven, mostly periclinal, 3–5.5 μm wide, pale pigmented, thick-walled 0.8–1 μm thick; terminal elements 31–56 × 5–6 μm, slender clavate, wall up 0.5 μm thick, sometimes anticlinal. Clamp connections abundant and conspicuous in all examined tissues.

Habitat

gregarious and scattered, emerging from sandy soil, among some trees of “cerrado rupestre”vegetation.

Known distribution

French Guyana, Guyana, Venezuela [7] and Brazil in the states of Amazonas [2], Distrito Federal (present study), Paraíba, Paraná, Pernambuco [2, 3, 7], Santa Catarina and São Paulo [44] (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Geographical distribution of Cantharellus guyanensis

Remarks

Cantharellus guyanensis has some peculiar features and is recognized in the field by the small orange yellow basidiomata, hymenophore composed of dichotomously forked and sometimes anastomosed folds; the odor is very pleasant and conspicuously fruity when fresh and pleasant farinose in dried state, and the taste astringent but agradable in fresh specimens in our specimens. Microscopically, it bears (1) ellipsoid to cylindrical, smooth, thin-walled, basidiospores (6.8–)7–9(–9.8) × 4.5–5.5(–6) µm, (2) slender-clavate, mostly 4–5–6-spored basidia, (3) and sometimes presenting thick-walled (to 1 μm thick) densely packed hyphae in the pileipellis bearing slender clavate terminal elements.

Nutritional Composition

Cantharellus guyanensis had 96% dry matter and 4% moisture, with 8.8% mineral material. The crude protein content was 25%, with high solubility in 0.2% KOH (85.2%), indicating good protein availability and easy digestibility. Total carbohydrates reached 64.2%, with 42% non-fiber carbohydrates and 42% starch, reinforcing its energy potential. The total digestible nutrient content was 79.8%, while crude fat accounted for just 2%.

The fibrous fraction included 5% crude fiber, 10.6% acid detergent soluble fiber and 22.2% neutral detergent soluble fiber, with lower levels of lignin (6.8%), cellulose (3.8%) and hemicellulose (11.6%). Among the macro and micronutrients, 40 g/kg of nitrogen, 28.8 g/kg of potassium and 347 mg/kg of iron stand out, the latter in high concentration. Elements such as copper (63 mg/kg), manganese (45 mg/kg) and zinc (73 mg/kg) were also quantified, reinforcing the species’ nutritional potential (Table 2).

Table 2 Nutritional composition of Cantharellus guyanensis