Previous Version 8
Author: sensu lato
for Pleurotoid agarics.
|Simocybe (e.g. S. haustellaris)||Crepidotaceae|
|Deconica/Melanotus (e.g. D. horizontalis)||Strophariaceae s.l.|
|Gymnopilus (e.g. G. pyrrhus)||Strophariaceae s.l.|
|Phaeomarasmius (e.g. P. siquierii)||Tubariaceae|
|Clitopilus (e.g. C. hobsonii)||Entolomataceae|
|Entoloma subgenus Claudopus||Entolomataceae|
|Marasmius (e.g. M. conchiformis)||Marasmiaceae|
|Gymnopus (e.g. G. subsupinus)||Omphalotaceae|
|Mycetinis (e.g. M. ignobilis)||Omphalotaceae|
|Arrhenia (e.g. A. spathulata)||Hygrophoraceae|
- Craterellus pleurotoides
The info is good to have but should be made clear in regards to how it is nonstandard in its designation. We still want to use standard science nomenclature and taxonomy on MO as well right?
and looking at where this name page is now, it’s beautiful to see all the taxa to which this name can apply. whatever body-form names out there don’t yet have this (except for the self explanatory ones) should be given the same treatment.
The sensu lato designation should generally only be used to include taxonomic ranks that ‘used to’ be considered to be included, or that ‘might be’ considered to be included in the future in Pleurotus sensu stricto.; if Pleurotus sensu lato. is to be conflated as it is currently, it should be made clear so it doesn’t appear that this is considered to be a natural grouping based any type of phylogenetic or taxonomic information.
I hope it can be sorted more appropriately.
I’m pretty insensitive to slippery slope arguments in general and this is no exception – if you’re invoking a future point that’d be going too far, then you’re implicitly saying “Yes, this particular step is okay”. So, what’s in order is a warning/call to plan for that future, not a preemptive ending.
“Marasmiaceae” is already used for Marasmioid things – have there been any problems with it? (I think usage of that name should largely/entirely be replaced with “Marasmiaceae sensu lato” but that’s a different issue)
“Tricholoma sensu lato” doesn’t make much sense to me personally, just because I’ve never felt the need for such a name, but it seems fine if others would find it useful.
“Clitocybe sensu lato” would be an even tougher sell because SO MUCH has been in Clitocybe.
I didn’t know “Agaricales sensu lato” was contentious at all, so I might be too ignorant to even have this discussion.
I imagine someone studying Pleurotus would rather be able to only have to go through the “Pleurotus sensu lato” observations than all the “Agaricales sensu lato” ones, no?
I’ve been intending to do Mycena s.l. (to replace the improperly used “Mycenaceae”) and Omphalina s.l. too.
but have so far resisted the urge to do so, partly because of the slippery slope it creates for any and every agaric body form to become sensu lato-ified, and the potential complications that come with. If there should be Pleurotus sensu lato for pleurotoid things, why not Marasmius sensu lato for marasmioid ones, or Tricholoma sensu lato or Clitocybe sensu lato? Maybe those are all justifiable in their own right, but I guess I always felt that Agaricales sensu lato was contentious enough by itself. I also wonder to what extent someone specifically studying one of these genera would agree with the use of [Insert Genus Here] sensu lato to simply mean anything with that genus’ gestalt. Maybe Pleurotus sensu lato means something very different to pleurotologists than sessile gilled things.
Created: 2017-02-13 14:12:16 -05 (-0500) by Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
Last modified: 2018-05-04 18:24:45 -05 (-0500) by Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
Viewed: 465 times, last viewed: 2018-05-27 03:30:14 -05 (-0500)