Name: Amanita flavorubens (Berk. & Mont.) Sacc.
Most Confident Observations:
341132
Copyright © 2013 Eric Smith (esmith)
91184
Copyright © 2010 Eric Smith (esmith)
87885
Copyright © 2010 Rob (gourmand)
89289
Copyright © 2010 Dan Molter (shroomydan)
Version: 6
Previous Version 


First person to use this name on MO: Nathan Wilson
Editors: R. E. Tulloss, Erlon

Nomenclature:

Rank: Species

Status: Accepted

Name: Amanita flavorubens

Author: (Berk. & Mont.) Sacc.

Citation: 1887. Sylloge fungorum 5: 17.

Deprecated Synonyms: Amanita flavorubescens G.F. Atk., Possibly Amanita flavorubescens

Classification:

Domain: Eukarya

Kingdom: Fungi

Phylum: Basidiomycota

Class: Agaricomycetes

Order: Agaricales

Family: Amanitaceae

Genus: Amanita

Show Varieties

Descriptions: [Create]

Comments

Add Comment
Approved
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2013-07-07 13:51:58 -05 (-0500)

Leaving both names as ‘approved’. Rod Tulloss indicates that A. flavorubens is the preferred name, but MycoBank prefers A. flavorubescens.

Interesting and tricky
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2013-07-07 13:50:20 -05 (-0500)

I’d definitely like to hear Rod’s opinion on this. Given that it’s an American species and Rod’s level of experience with it, I would tend to with his opinion (http://amanitaceae.org/?Amanita%20flavorubens) over that of MycoBank’s which has no justification.

Invalid
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2013-07-05 15:26:45 -05 (-0500)

“Should we call this mushroom “Amanita flavorubens?” Amanita expert Rod Tulloss does so at his web site, and Jenkins (1986) suspected “the possibility” in his treatment of the genus in North America. The name flavorubens was designated in 1856 by Montagne, who was describing a species from Ohio; the name flavorubescens comes from Atkinson in 1902, describing a species from New York. The two descriptions (follow the links; Montagne’s description is in Latin while Atkinson’s is in English) are indeed similar and plausibly represent the same morphological species. Absent any other factors, this would mean that the older name, flavorubens, should take precedence. However, MycoBank, one of two online databases widely used for mycological taxonomic records, currently indicates that Montagne’s name was actually invalid, since his “Agaricus flavorubens” represented a name already designated for a different species by Persoon in 1828. To confuse things further, MycoBank does not have any records for Persoon’s supposed use of the name; neither does the other widely used database, Index Fungorum. Persoon’s publication is about 300 pages long, is written in Latin, and includes no index; you are welcome to search for the epithet flavorubens if you really need this issue resolved right now. But I think this is a mess that should be sorted out and thoroughly reasoned in a peer-reviewed taxonomic publication, rather than on web sites and in databases. Meanwhile the conservative course is to keep using the epithet flavorubescens since it is widely known, and since at least one important online database suggests the base-name for flavorubens is invalid."

Kuo, M. (2013, April). Amanita flavorubescens. Retrieved from the MushroomExpert.Com Web site: http://www.mushroomexpert.com/amanita_flavorubescens.html

Created: 2007-06-19 00:53:34 -05 (-0500) by Nathan Wilson (nathan)
Last modified: 2013-07-07 13:51:58 -05 (-0500) by Nathan Wilson (nathan)
Viewed: 978 times, last viewed: 2018-04-22 11:00:43 -05 (-0500)
Show Log