Created: 2008-03-12 09:06:07
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
Summary: No 'petition', just discussion

There hasn’t been anything published on this front. It’s all a matter of opinion. Rod had previously favored A. lanei for reasons that I’ll leave to him to explain if he wants. All I did was argue that A. calyptroderma must get used once the identity of the type collections is know. It is still possible that A. lanei will get used as well, but it would first have to be shown that the type for A. lanei is a different species that A. calyptroderma. What remains unclear are the connections between the entities we are all familiar with and the various candidate names. This will require detailed analysis of both the type collections and the populations we see in the field.

Created: 2008-03-12 08:08:52
By: debbie viess (amanitarita)
Summary: glad to see calyptroderma back in useage!

yeah, I just read that over on Rod’s site. always disliked the lanei moniker, for a variety of reasons, and felt that eventually this injustice would be righted! why did it go back? who did the petitioning? and hoorah for positive change!