The typification of the generic type, H. rubiginosa, requires clarification. Hymenochaete rubiginosa has been conserved as the generic type of Hymenochaete (ICN Appendix III). However, the original English material of Helvella rubiginosa Dicks. which could be used for the species typification does not exist (Parmasto 2001). Job (1990) selected Lloyd’s collection from Ohio as a neotype of H. rubiginosa, but we disagree with his decision. According to our analysis of ITS sequences, the current concept of H. rubiginosa covers probably at least four species: European (i.e. H. rubiginosa s. str.), two unnamed sibling species from North America, and one from East Asia (Fig. 4). The type of H. rubiginosa should have been designated from European material.

For this reason, we suggest to typify H. rubiginosa with an authentic specimen from the Fries herbarium in Uppsala: Sweden. Småland: Femsjö, Fries (UPS F-175700, lectotype of Helvella rubiginosa Dicks. designated here, MBT386587). This specimen was with high likelihood collected prior to 1821 when the sanctioning work Systema Mycologicum was published (Fries 1821) and is suitable as a lectotype (ICN Art. 9.3). Our reasoning is as follows: Fries used the name Stereum rubiginosum for this species in Fries (1818: 274), and this is how Fries has labelled the lectotype (his handwriting is visible). In Systema Mycologicum (Fries 1821) he switched to the name Thelephora rubiginosa for this species. Thus, the lectotype predates the sanctioning and is the only authentic specimen of this species in Fries’s herbarium.

The four relatives of H. rubiginosa in North America and East Asia need other names in the future. For the time being they can be labelled H. rubiginosa coll. One of them is labelled H. ochromarginata (He & Dai 2012), but because H. ochromarginata was described from Africa, its applicability to Chinese material should be critically assessed.