A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.
1. You refer to porcini, but only provide some confusing details about the taxonomy in the final paragraph of the introduction, at which point we are now not talking about porcini per se but the chinese relative that is globally exported.
2. Not knowing this information - or making it clearer - makes it confusing when your Methods include using a single sequence from this Chinese relative of porcini as an out group, and you refer to "38 ingroup sequences" but I was then confused since you only chose 15 tissue samples to sequence. Only by the end of the paper is it clear that the remaining sequences are from previous published work.
3. You go to great lengths to identify the 3 clades in the "ingroup" data but without context to the sequence variation found within B. aereus it is hard to know why these are elevated to distinct species; I have enough background in fungal and invertebrate species barcoding/taxonomy to understand the problem inherent in naming species based on sequence data alone (I'm not opposed to this, just recognize the difficulties and potential for splitting), and so perhaps more information both on the context of diversity for these new sequences as well as the criteria that allows new binomials to be given (and are these recognized formally??) would be helpful.
I hope these comments are helpful. It is an interesting and useful study.
You can also choose to receive updates via daily or weekly email digests. If you are following multiple preprints then we will send you no more than one email per day or week based on your preferences.
Note: You are now also subscribed to the subject areas of this preprint and will receive updates in the daily or weekly email digests if turned on. You can add specific subject areas through your profile settings.
Usage since published - updated daily