Reference health

Clitopilus canariensis (Basidiomycota, Entolomataceae), a new species in the C. nitellinus-complex (Clitopilus subg. Rhodophana) from the Canary Islands (Spain)

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12228-011-9187-z
CiteStamped reference-health badge
1 of 8 checkable references need attention · checked 2026-07-22

At the dated check, the references listed below either did not resolve in Crossref or DataCite, or carried a retraction notice. Each one is shown with the registry record that put it there.

15 without a DOI — not checked. A reference deposited without a DOI is never matched by title or guessed at; it stays outside the checked set, and this line discloses that.

References needing attention

does not resolve to a known work10.2307/3760194
The 7 checked references that resolve
resolves10.1071/SB06002
New species and records of Rhodocybe (Entolomataceae, Agaricales) from Tasmania
resolves10.2307/3760730
Entolomataceae in North America III: New Taxa, New Combinations and Notes on Species of Rhodocybe
resolves10.1139/b86-197
<i>Clitopilus fuscogelatinosus</i> and <i>Rhodocybe carlottae</i>, new species in the Entolomataceae (Agaricales) from Canada
resolves10.3767/003158509X480944
Molecular phylogeny and spore evolution of <i>Entolomataceae</i>
resolves10.1007/S10267-009-0008-0
The Entolomataceae of the Pakaraima Mountains of Guyana III: new species of Rhodocybe
resolves10.1080/0028825X.1979.10426901
Fungi Agaricini Novazelandiae VII. <i>Rhodocybe</i> Maire*
resolves10.1016/S0007-1536(60)80065-4
New check list of British agarics and boleti
The 15 references without a DOI — listed, not checked
no DOI — not checkedBaroni, T. J. 1981. A revision of the genus Rhodocybe Maire (Agaricales). Nova Hedwigia, beih. 67: 1–194.
no DOI — not checked——— & D.L. Largent. 1989. The genus Rhodocybe: new combinations and a revised key to section Rhodophana in North America. Mycotaxon 34: 47–53.
no DOI — not checkedBidaud, A. & M. Contu. 2007. Rhodocybe infundibuliformis, una nuova specie della sez. Rhodophana raccolta in Francia. Rivista di Micologia 50: 313–318.
no DOI — not checkedClémençon, H. 2004. Cytology and Plectology of the Hymenomycetes. Bibliotheca Mycologica 199: 1–488.
no DOI — not checkedConsiglio, G. & M. Contu. 2006. Rhodocybe cuprea (Basidiomycetes, Entolomataceae). Una specie critica della sezione Rhodophana. Rivista di Micologia.49: 129–135.
no DOI — not checked——— & ———. 2008. Rhodocybe hausknechtii, una nuova specie della sezione Rhodophana dall’Italia settentrionale. Rivista di Micologia 51: 15–21.
no DOI — not checkedContu, M. 2009. Studi sul genere Clitopilus (incl. Rhodocybe) 1 – Prima segnalazione in Italia di Clitopilus blancii comb. nov., nuove raccolte di Clitopilus giovanellae, iconografia di Clitopilus carneolus comb. nov. e ulteriori nuove combinazioni. Bollettino AMER 77–78 (2–3): 15–31.
no DOI — not checked——— & M. Bon. 1991. Champignons de Sardaigne (trois nouvelles espèces). Documents Mycologiques 81: 41–45.
no DOI — not checkedEsteve-Raventos, F. 2001. Rhodocybe subcaespitosa sp. nov. (Entolomataceae, Agaricales) found in Spain. A.M.B., Italy. Centro Studi Micologici, Micologia 2000 (AMB): 177–183.
no DOI — not checkedFavre, J. 1960. Catalogue descriptif des Champignons Supérieurs de la Zone Subalpine du Parc National Suisse. Ergebn. Wiss. Untersuch. Schweiz. Natn. Parks 6: 323–610.
no DOI — not checkedHorak, E. 1978. Notes on Rhodocybe Maire. Sydowia 31: 58–80.
no DOI — not checkedKornerup, A. & J. H. Wanscher. 1978. Methuen handbook of colour, 3rd edn. Eyre Methuen & Co., Ltd., London.
no DOI — not checkedNoordeloos, M. E. 1983. Notulae ad floram agaricinam neerlandicam. I–III. Marasmiellus, Macrocystidia and Rhodocybe. Persoonia 12: 29–49.
no DOI — not checked———. 1988. Rhodocybe Maire. Flora Agaricina neerlandica 1. Pp. 77–82. In: C. Bas, Th.W. Kuyper, M.E. Noordeloos & E.C. Vellinga (eds.), A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
no DOI — not checkedSinger, R. & L. Digilio. 1951. Prodromo de la flora agaricina argentina. Lilloa 25: 1–462.
What this badge says. CiteStamped means the CHECKABLE references of this work were clean at the dated check: each resolved to a known work in a public registry, and none carried a retraction notice at that time. It says nothing about the quality, findings, or importance of the work itself, and nothing about references deposited without a DOI.

checked 2026-07-22 — re-checked daily as this page is visited; titles and statuses come from Crossref and DataCite and are not part of the signed record

Embed this badge

Both snippets point at the live badge image and link back to this page. The badge re-renders from the daily check, so an embed never goes stale by more than a day of visits.

<a href="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.1007/s12228-011-9187-z"><img src="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.1007/s12228-011-9187-z/badge.svg" alt="CiteStamped reference-health badge" width="460" height="64"></a>
[![CiteStamped reference-health badge](https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.1007/s12228-011-9187-z/badge.svg)](https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.1007/s12228-011-9187-z)