# Lepista
**Lepista** (Fr.) W.G. Sm. is a genus of gilled mushrooms in the family Clitocybaceae (order [Agaricales](https://www.edgepedia.org/agaricales)), erected by W.G. Smith in 1870 and containing about 50 species[1](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6637932/). Species in the genus, known in English as blewits, are recognized by a coarse (roughened) spore surface, a white to pale-pink spore print, and clamped hyphae[1](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6637932/). Several species, including the wood blewit (*[Lepista nuda](https://www.edgepedia.org/clitocybe-nuda)*) and the field blewit, are popular edible mushrooms, and the genus has been the subject of substantial taxonomic reorganization since molecular phylogenetics reshaped the family Clitocybaceae[1](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6637932/) • [2](https://www.mdpi.com/2309-608X/12/8/548).
| Key fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Name and rank | *Lepista* (Fr.) W.G. Sm., 1870; genus in family Clitocybaceae, suborder Tricholomatineae, order Agaricales[1](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6637932/) • [3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?command=show&id=64652&lvl=&mode=node) |
| Species count | About 50 species worldwide; 12 species reported in China[1](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6637932/) |
| Diagnostic characters | Coarse spore surface, white to pale-pink spore print, clamped hyphae[1](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6637932/) |
| Type species | *L. densifolia* (J. Favre) Singer & Clémençon, accepted as lectotype following Singer (1986)[2](https://www.mdpi.com/2309-608X/12/8/548) • [4](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375959665_Systematic_arrangement_within_the_family_Clitocybaceae_Tricholomatineae_Agaricales_phylogenetic_and_phylogenomic_evidence_morphological_data_and_muscarine-producing_innovation) |
| Edible species | *L. nuda*, *L. sordida*, and *L. irina* are popular edible mushrooms in China[1](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6637932/) |
| DNA barcode | The ITS region distinguishes all eight tested species and is proposed as the barcode for the genus[5](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31341746/) |
| Recent taxonomy | A 2023 phylogenomic study recognized six genera in Clitocybaceae and transferred many traditional *Lepista* species to *Collybia*[2](https://www.mdpi.com/2309-608X/12/8/548) • [6](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12112982/) |
## Identification and morphology
The genus is defined by a combination of macroscopic and microscopic characters. The spore deposit is white to pale pink, and the spores themselves have a coarse surface, a feature that separates *Lepista* from the smooth-spored, white-printed funnel mushrooms of *Clitocybe*; the hyphae have clamp connections (bridges between fungal cells; mark certain mushroom lineages)[1](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6637932/). Among fungi with a pinkish brown spore print, *Lepista* resembles larger species of the *Clitopilus* morphogroup *Rhodocybe*, but those fungi have spores that are angular in end view and generally lack clamp connections[7](https://data.rbg.vic.gov.au/dev/fungikeys/funkey/key/Funkey%20-%20Key%20to%20the%20Agarics%20of%20Australia/Media/Html/Fact%20Sheets/Lepista.htm).
Within the genus, species are difficult to distinguish because morphological characters are limited and vary among observers. *L. irina* and *L. panaeola*, for example, have similar whitish caps and differ mainly in spore size and spore wall structure[1](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6637932/). This difficulty makes misidentification common both between and within species, which matters because several species are collected as food[1](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6637932/).
## Taxonomic history and instability
The name *Lepista* has moved repeatedly among placements. Fries originally used the name at a lower rank, and Smith raised it to a genus in 1870[1](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6637932/). In the twentieth century, H.E. Bigelow treated *Lepista* as a section of *Clitocybe*, so combinations of many traditional *Lepista* species under *Clitocybe* already exist in the nomenclatural literature[2](https://www.mdpi.com/2309-608X/12/8/548) • [8](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tax.13149).
Molecular phylogenetics then showed that the traditional genera *Clitocybe*, *Collybia*, and *Lepista* were each polyphyletic, with members scattered among one another's lineages. A 2023 phylogenomic study of Clitocybaceae by He and colleagues reconstructed the family around six genera, *Clitocybe*, *Collybia*, *Dendrocollybia*, *Lepista*, *Pseudolyophyllum*, and *Singerocybe*, with *Lepista* typified by *L. densifolia*[2](https://www.mdpi.com/2309-608X/12/8/548) • [4](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375959665_Systematic_arrangement_within_the_family_Clitocybaceae_Tricholomatineae_Agaricales_phylogenetic_and_phylogenomic_evidence_morphological_data_and_muscarine-producing_innovation). In that framework, a large number of traditional *Clitocybe* and *Lepista* species were transferred to different clades of the genus *Collybia*, leaving the two genera as monophyletic groups[6](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12112982/). Because several widely used names changed genus more than once in a few years, field guides and databases published in the same period disagree on whether the blewits belong in *Lepista*, *Clitocybe*, or *Collybia*[8](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tax.13149).
A nomenclatural proposal published in TAXON in 2024 seeks to conserve the name *Clitocybe* with a conserved type. The authors argue this would keep the majority of species described in *Clitocybe* under that name, avoid hundreds of new taxonomic combinations, preserve the existing combinations of most traditional *Lepista* species under *Clitocybe*, and clearly delineate the generic boundary between *Clitocybe* in the new sense and *Lepista* sensu stricto[8](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tax.13149).
## Phylogenetic placement and relatives
Within Clitocybaceae, *Lepista* sensu stricto forms its own clade (Clade C in the 2023 analysis, supported by 87% bootstrap and 1.00 posterior probability), sister to a lineage of species formerly placed in the genus[2](https://www.mdpi.com/2309-608X/12/8/548). A 2025 phylogenomic analysis based on 485 single-copy genes confirmed that the newly described genus **Allolepista**, which includes species such as *A. benekei* and *A. crenata*, is sister to *Lepista* sensu stricto with 100% bootstrap support[2](https://www.mdpi.com/2309-608X/12/8/548).
Morphologically, taxa in *Lepista* sensu stricto have more or less white-toned basidiomes, overall duller and lighter in color, and more decurrent gills than species in the other two traditional *Lepista* clades, which now sit in *Collybia* subgenera[4](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375959665_Systematic_arrangement_within_the_family_Clitocybaceae_Tricholomatineae_Agaricales_phylogenetic_and_phylogenomic_evidence_morphological_data_and_muscarine-producing_innovation). Several other genera with lepistoid names, such as *Paralepista*, *Notholepista*, and *Paralepistopsis*, are not part of Clitocybaceae; the first two belong to the separate family Paralepistaceae in the updated classification of the suborder Tricholomatineae[9](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11003440/).
Spore ornamentation tracks this phylogeny: most species in Clitocybaceae produce smooth spores, whereas rough spores are found in the lepistoid species[2](https://www.mdpi.com/2309-608X/12/8/548).
## Species, edibility, and toxins
Twelve *Lepista* species have been reported in China, where they are widely distributed[1](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6637932/). *L. nuda*, *L. sordida*, and *L. irina* are popular edible mushrooms there[1](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6637932/). Because the genus contains species that are eaten and close relatives that are not, identification rests on the spore print and spore surface rather than on cap color alone[1](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6637932/).
The family-level study of Clitocybaceae also traced toxin evolution: muscarine production arose in the family roughly 20 million years ago and was not subsequently lost, making muscarine production a shared derived character of the poisonous members of the family[10](https://www.kib.cas.cn/xwzx/kyjz/202311/t20231129_6938698.html).
## DNA barcoding
Because morphology alone rarely separates *Lepista* species, a 2019 study evaluated five candidate DNA barcode regions, the internal transcribed spacer (ITS), the intergenic spacer (IGS), the nuclear ribosomal RNA subunit, the mitochondrial small subunit rDNA, and *tef1*, using 134 sequences from 34 samples representing eight species. ITS distinguished all species tested, and a neighbor-joining tree based on ITS placed the eight species, including two unrecognized ones, in eight separate, well-supported clades; the authors proposed ITS as the DNA barcode for the genus[5](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31341746/).
## References
1. [Wang S, Guo H, Li J, Li W, Wang Q, Yu X (2019). Evaluation of five regions as DNA barcodes for identification of Lepista species (Tricholomataceae, Basidiomycota) from China. PeerJ 7:e7307.](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6637932/)
2. [He ZM, Xu YD and colleagues (2025). Phylogenetic and Phylogenomic Analyses Reveal New Taxa in Clitocybaceae, with Notes on Poisonous Species and Spore Evolution. Journal of Fungi 12(8):548.](https://www.mdpi.com/2309-608X/12/8/548)
3. [NCBI Taxonomy Browser: Lepista (Fr.) W.G. Sm., 1870, taxonomy ID 64652.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?command=show&id=64652&lvl=&mode=node)
4. [Wang G-S and colleagues (2023). Systematic arrangement within the family Clitocybaceae (Tricholomatineae, Agaricales): phylogenetic and phylogenomic evidence, morphological data and muscarine-producing innovation.](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375959665_Systematic_arrangement_within_the_family_Clitocybaceae_Tricholomatineae_Agaricales_phylogenetic_and_phylogenomic_evidence_morphological_data_and_muscarine-producing_innovation)
5. [Wang S and colleagues (2019). Evaluation of five regions as DNA barcodes for identification of Lepista species. PubMed record.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31341746/)
6. [Multiple Analyses Reveal Evidence for Three New Species of Collybia (Clitocybaceae, Basidiomycete) from China. PMC12112982.](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12112982/)
7. [Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria, Key to the Agarics of Australia: Lepista fact sheet.](https://data.rbg.vic.gov.au/dev/fungikeys/funkey/key/Funkey%20-%20Key%20to%20the%20Agarics%20of%20Australia/Media/Html/Fact%20Sheets/Lepista.htm)
8. [He Z-M and colleagues (2024). (3014) Proposal to conserve the name Clitocybe (Basidiomycota) with a conserved type. TAXON.](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tax.13149)
9. [Vizzini A, Alvarado P, Consiglio G, Marchetti M, Xu J (2024). Family matters inside the order Agaricales. Studies in Mycology 107:67–148.](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11003440/)
10. [Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences (2023). Research progress on the systematics of Clitocybaceae and muscarine evolution (in Chinese).](https://www.kib.cas.cn/xwzx/kyjz/202311/t20231129_6938698.html)
---
*Topic: Encyclopedia › Life and health › Microorganisms and fungi › Fungi and mycology › Basidiomycete taxa › Agaricomycetes › Agaricales › Tricholomataceae and allies › Lepista*
*Initially written Sep 17, 2026 · Reviewed: Oct 21, 2026 · Edited: Oct 11, 2026; Oct 15, 2026; Oct 21, 2026 · Last review: Oct 21, 2026*
*Copyright 2026 EdgeChat AI, a subsidiary of Biostate AI.*
License: Edgepedia Community License 1.0, https://www.edgepedia.org/edgepedia/license