Created: 2008-07-07 21:15:03
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
Summary: Both names currently supported...

This gets into the finer points of how names are handled in MO, but currently both B. pinophilus and B. “rexvernus” are supported as valid names in the site. They are currently synonyms. This means that most searches will turn up observations for either name and certainly visiting the name page for either name will list all the relevant observations. Technically B. pinophilus is the most valid scientific name for the Sierran spring porcini that I know of. However, I prefer to label them with the provisional name B. “rexvernus” since for now it behaves essentially the same and when the Sierran spring procini evenually gets published it will be a fairly straight forward to get the ones labelled B. “rexvernus” fixed up regardless of the new name. Personally I consider B. pinophilus to be misleading and as Dimi points out if we start getting pictures of European B. pinophilus it will be harder to sort things out when the Sierran one gets formally named. The thing that’s nice in this case is that we do have a generally agreed upon provisional name, so I say let’s use it.

Created: 2008-07-07 08:12:43
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
Summary: Yeah, well there is a reason for that...

Well, as someone from Europe, there is a reason for the confusion, you are right, this isn’t actually a Boletus pinophilus. There is a Bolete that grows up in the Sierras in California, that got called B. pinophilus when first observed. Later people have found it was a new species, but it still hasn’t been published as a new species in all the years that this is known. The proposed name is Boletus “rexvernus”, but for a while now for a number of people we still just call it Boletus pinophilus, even though we know it isn’t. Sorry about that.

If there get to be postings here of the real Boletus pinophilus from Europe, we should split off of the Sierra observations to the new name, to keep them separate.

Created: 2008-07-06 14:38:10
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
Summary: All right

I withdraw the proposition. It still doesn’t look like B. pinophilus, but I noticed that the name was uncertain..

Created: 2008-07-06 13:32:15
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
Summary: Not that fuzzy...

I don’t think these are all that fuzzy, or at all. The one in the shot is covered in a light dusting of sandy soil. I think the id on these was pretty clear at the time, even though maybe the photo isn’t that clear.