While there are some taxonomic issues with this concept, an inclusive approach has been taken and the species’ range is here treated as including the United States and Mexico. With such a wide range it is not expected to approach the thresholds for consideration as threatened under any criterion and is assessed as Least Concern. However, if future taxonomic work were to show that it may be more restricted then it may warrant a higher threat category.

This species is now placed under a replacement name of Cantharellus furcatus (Montoya et al. 2021).

Chanterelle project

This species was originally collected from the state of Veracruz in Mexico, near Orizaba (Berkeley 1867). Collections identified as this species come from a wide range from Mexico, through areas of southeastern USA and into the southern Appalachian Mountains (Kuo 2015).

Originally described as Craterellus confluens, this species has more recently been recombined as Cantharellus furcatus (Montoya et al. 2021). Most records of the species, however, are found under its original name or its homotypic synonym Cantharellus confluens. There are, however, some doubts over the use of, and misidentifications of Cantharellus confluens (Buyck and Hofstetter 2011). For the purpose of this assessment, though, an inclusive approach is taken.

There are no quantitative data regarding the overall population size and trend, but given its potentially very wide range it is assumed to have an extremely large population size.

This species is found in forested habitats associated with various Quercus species and other hardwoods (Montoya et al. 2015, Kuo 2015). It grows in a range of habits, from solitary to gregarious (Kuo 2015).

While it may face localised threats, it is unlikely to face any threats that would significantly impact its future survival in the short-term.

Further research into the taxonomy of the species is clearly required, in particular DNA studies to ascertain conclusively the identity of specimens assigned to this species from the United States.

It is assumed to be edible based on a description of its taste as ‘not distinctive’ (Kuo 2015), but how widely it may be consumed is unknown