When a non-Latin/non-Greek word is adopted into Botanical Latin (as a genus name or a specie epithet, say), if the ending is an “-a,” it would be considered a feminine noun. Then the root would be the given word with the “-a” removed: anan-, juan-, go-, tuz-, obam-, etc. Hence, Berkeley, for example, in creating an epithet beginning with “ananae” was using the Latinized noun “anana” in the genitive singular. For example, if you had a genus of plant disease (genus X), and you found a disease of pineapple in that genus, you might (and this has not been uncommon in the taxonomy of fungal phytopathologens) name the species X. ananae…“[the] X [pathogen] of pineapple.”

R.

“ananas” is the latin word for pineapple, it comes from the indian word “anana” via Portuguese. The genitive singular form is the stem plus -ae, does “anana” have a stem?

Some orthographic changes that are recommended (but not required) are also cautioned against in the code. However, the change in the present case is not a choice—-it is required.

The orthography of the name is to be changed due to ICBN Article 60.8 as supported in a relevant example by Recommendation 60G.1b. In this case the original name was formed by taking the genitive singular form of anana (i.e., ananae) and attaching it to “ceps” making “ananaeceps” (Pineapple’s Head). The above cited references in the ICBN require the singular genitive ending “-ae” to be replaced by an “i” in this case. Hence, the correct name (not by choice, but by law) is “ananiceps” (Pineapple Head).

R.

Rod and Debbie: Article 60 of the ICBN (specifically as outlined in Recommendation 60G I believe) that deals with Orthography indicates that “i” is in accordance with classical usage. I was kindly pointed to the Code by a retired botanist (Jim Reveal) now working at Cornell.

this question has come up recently about a western Hygrocybe sp., calyptraeformis/calyptriformis. Is there some sort of current rule about dropping the ae in favor of i? Index Fungorum lists calyptriformis as the correct spelling, although all of our older literature lists it as calyptrae…
perhaps, since it is tangential to this amanita sighting, this discussion could jump to the Hygrocybe sighting here?

http://mushroomobserver.org/44349?q=Ea3

No general forum for these discussions available on MO, although we could take it to the BAMS discussion group, here:

www.bayareamushrooms@yahoogroups.com

I like the old spelling myself, but I’m kinda old fashioned like that. Gotta keep up with changes, like it or not…;)

R.

The name appears in Bougher & Syme as ananiceps – seemed right to follow them. I’ll be using ‘ananiceps’ for my material when I get it uploaded and online. Same for a Boletellus which I’ll be observing shortly. Thanks.

Roy, those are cool pictures. I’d love to look at your material, but I think a better person would be Dr. Elaine Davison, who is located near Perth and has studied other material of ananaeceps and, I think, has a good working knowledge of the species. I’m going to write to her about your collection from Fraser Island. She has sent me photographs of her material; and yours has a more decorated bulb (those rings of volval material) than hers does and the bulb margin in her material is very distinctly marginate (more so than what I see in your photos). I hope Elaine will be willing to take a look at the part of your material deposited in BRI.

The yellow staining reaction makes me wonder if the material might be exhibiting the yellow staining syndrome that we see in North American lepidellas.

R.

When Saccardo moved Berkeley’s name to Amanita he changed the spelling. Bas (1969) retains the original spelling—-“ananaeceps.” – R.