The original concept of Ascophanus by Boudier (1869) was very heterogeneous. No type species was designated (by the author or under the ICN rules). This is the same with Boudier's classification in 1885.
Saccardo (1884) cited A. cinereus for designating Ascophanus genus in a key, and Rifai (1968) considered this as a typification... Seaver was the first to select explicitly a type species: A. subfusca. This latter point of view was followed by Le Gal (1953), Kimbrough & Korf (1967) and Eckblad (1968). Clements & Shear (1931) selected A. carneus as type-species, and was followed by Korf (1958) and Brummelen (1967). Pouzar & Svrcek (1972) considering inappropriate the choice of A. subfusca decided to typify the genus Ascophanus with A. granuliformis
If we accept the lectotypifcation of Ascophanus with Peziza subfusca Crouan (which is the same species as Thelebolus microsporus), so the genus becomes a synonym of Thelebolus (not Coprotus). In the other hand, if we follow the reasoning of Pouzar & Svrcek, the genus Ascophanus could be kept and (all) the species of Coprotus should fall into Ascophanus...
The art. 10.5 of ICN indicates: "The author who first designates (art. 7.9 and 7.10) a type of a name of a genus [...] must be followed, but the choice must be superseded if (a) it can be shown that it is a serious conflict with the protologue [...]" So, in our case, as Boudier treats the genus Ascophanus with operculate asci, Pouzar & Svrcek have legitimately rejected the Seaver's choice!
In the other hand, the Czech authors rejected the lectotypification made by Clements & Shear only because they considered that verrucose spores are an "exception" in the genus Ascophanus (the diagnosis indicates: "... levi raro minitutissime punctato.")
In my opinion, this position is clearly questionable, because the art. 7.2 of ICN indicates: " [...] The nomenclatural type is not necessary the most typical or representative element of a taxon." So the choice made by Clements & Shear is acceptable under ICN rules. The consequence is that Ascophanus could be kept and replace the genus Iodophanus. Of course, this is just a first evaluation of this complex situation :-)

Cher Collègue,

Je t'envoie, en privé, un scan d'une partie de l'article de Kimbrough et Korf (1967) A synopsis of the genera and species of the Tribe Thelebolaceae (=Pseudoascobolaeae) Amer.J. Bot. 54 (1) 9-23.

Amitiés

René

Hi Nicolas

many thanks for this detailed survey! How do you do it so fastly?

I now got Prokhorov from Martin, but it is only floristical.

Also I discovered Brummelen 1994 among my reprints, and also Brummelen 1998 (Reconsideration within Thelobolaceae, Persoonia 16: 425), but both seem to mention Ascophanus not at all.

The lectotypification by A. carneus seems indeed acceptable, only I do not understand why Korf (in Kimbrough & Korf 1967) followed Pouzar's idea and therefore erected Iodophanus.

So we hope for René's offer to send this paper. Thanks!!

-----
Now I got it. So Korf places here Ascophanus in synonymy with Thelebolus by accepting the type A. subfusca (= Th. microsporus), but rejecting A. carneus (= Iodophanus carneus). Of course this was before Pouzar published there opinion. But I cannot find an explanation on these two pages for the reason to reject his earlier opinion.

Zotto

Here is the relevant sentence in in Kimbrough & Korf 1967: 19 which, however, disregards the difference in the ascus apex (with/without operculum) as detected by Pouzar & Svrcek:

"Though many authors have accepted Ascophanus for A. carneus and its
allies, and have even indicated that A. carneus is the type species, the earliest known choice of a lectotype, even though it was a first-species choice under the American Code of Nomenclature, should not be overthrown unless one can prove
that the chosen species does not fit the generic protologue. It is clear that A. subfuscus fits Boudier's generic diagnosis and concept equally as well as does A. carneus."

Pouzar & Svrcek clearly indicated that subfusca does not fit the generic diagnosis.

Zotto