About the project
Background and Objectives
Currently, publicly available data on macrofungal diversity of Russia inadequately reflect the modern state of knowledge. Over 200 years of mycological research in the country have yielded approximately ca. 3000 scientific works. Although previous comprehensive studies—including the first national checklists of agaricoid and aphyllophoroid fungi (Bolshakov et al., 2021; Большаков и др., 2022)—synthesised a vast amount of literature, several gaps remain. Certain morphological groups were insufficiently covered, numerous papers have been published since 2020, and some historical works were previously overlooked. Furthermore, traditional static checklists are challenging to update and publish. To address this, we present an publicly accessible, dynamic online resource designed for continuous updates and effortless maintenance.
Taxonomic Scope
The database strictly encompasses names of macroscopic fungi belonging to the phylum Basidiomycota (subphyla Agaricomycotina and Pucciniomycotina). To delineate the scope of the project, we refer to traditional historical taxa (such as Agaricales, Aphyllophorales, Gasteromycetes, and Heterobasidiomycetes). While these higher taxa are considered obsolete in modern systematics, their corresponding morphogical terms—agaricoid, aphyllophoroid, and gasteroid basidiomycetes, alongside heterobasidiomycetes—are retained to describe the project’s coverage and for methodological convenience.
Data Sources and Inclusion Criteria
Currently, the database comprises data extracted manually from over 2430 literature sources published between 1822 and 2026.
The primary criterion for inclusion was based on two simultaneous conditions: 1) the ability to unambiguously link recorded scientific names to the Index Fungorum nomenclatural database, and 2) the provision of sufficient geographical data to assign the record to a modern administrative region.
We prioritised recent peer-reviewed articles and studies providing data on herbarium vouchers, precise localities, habitats, and substrates. Lower priority was assigned to older works that have been superseded by subsequent taxonomic revisions, as well as brief, non-peer-reviewed outputs (e.g., conference abstracts). Unpublished reports and field guides intended for the broad public were strictly omitted. PhD theses were incorporated only if no peer-reviewed articles had been published based on their materials, or if such articles lacked the comprehensive data present in the thesis.
Classification and Nomenclature
The rapidly changing taxonomy of fungi leads to inevitable discrepancies between the nomenclatural statuses provided by major global databases and those found in the latest taxonomic publications. To resolve this, we compiled a bespoke classification and synonymy framework based on an extensive array of mycological literature, which is updated as new studies emerge.
For classification from the subphylum down to the genus level, our primary baseline is the 2024 Outline of Fungi and fungus-like taxa (Hyde et al., 2024). To ensure the classification reflects the latest advancements, we have introduced selective taxonomic refinements. While many updates are explicitly supported by recent literature cited directly under the respective genus entry, modifications are sometimes incorporated without specific citations. This typically occurs in the absence of comprehensive revisions at the family or higher level, where updated placement is inferred from a synthesis of broader phylogenetic analyses or reflects a consensus reached by our editorial team.
At the species and infraspecific levels, the taxonomic status of names (accepted names, synonyms, misapplied names, etc.) is determined based on contemporary literature. Due to frequent discrepancies between Index Fungorum and recent studies, we append bibliographic references to each name, specifying its most up-to-date status. Our ultimate objective is to provide the exact sources justifying the status of each accepted name against its homotypic and heterotypic synonyms. Given the substantial volume of these sources, users are provided with separate access to the resulting classification and synonymy, complete with the full reference list.
Project Team
Since 2010, the continuous manual extraction and curation of data have been carried out by a dedicated team of 12 researchers from 8 institutions, and this effort remains actively ongoing.
Core Team and Editorial Board:
- Sergey Yu. Bolshakov1 – Project Lead and Technical Architect (project conception, data architecture, nomenclatural and taxonomic curation, quality control, and platform development).
- Lyudmila B. Kalinina1 – Taxonomic Curator and Project Coordinator.
- Sergey V. Volobuev1 – Taxonomic Curator and Project Coordinator.
Data Contributors:
- Ekaterina A. Palomozhnykh1 – Principal Data Contributor
- Dmitry V. Ageev2
- Salavat N. Arslanov3
- Oleg N. Ezhov4
- Nina V. Filippova5
- Marina A. Palamarchuk6
- Kim O. Potapov7
- Dmitry A. Tomchin8
- Elena Yu. Voronina9
Affiliations:
1 Komarov Botanical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg, Russia
2 Independent Researcher, Novosibirsk, Russia
3 Saint Petersburg Mycological Society, Saint Petersburg, Russia
4 Laverov Federal Center for Integrated Arctic Research of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Arkhangelsk, Russia
5 Yugra State University, Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia
6 Institute of Biology of the Komi Science Centre of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Syktyvkar, Russia
7 Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University, Kazan, Russia
8 Institute for Problems in Mechanical Engineering of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg, Russia
9 Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia
The project is hosted and curated by Komarov Botanical Institute. The core research and platform development were carried out within the framework of the state assignment of Komarov Botanical Institute “Biodiversity, ecology, structural and functional features of fungi and fungus-like protists”, No. АААА-А19-119020890079-6.