|User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||6.16||1||(darv)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
On one hand I want to use the names that coordinates with IndexFungorum and MycoBank. Sometimes they have different opinions, and then I usually prefer MycoBank which is better updated, but in such cases I need to make a choice.
On the other hand, I have seen discussions in the Nomenclature Committee when some member’s votes depend on the number of hits on Google, so I beleive that the sooner most sites have started using a particular name, the sooner it will become accepted…
In this case, I agree that Gliophorus is the right name to use – or will at least be in the future. I can’t see any competing genus name, and molecular studies indicate that it should be split from Hygrocybe.
G. psittacinus was already described as such, it is simply a matter of being convinced by the genetic data, and you can start using it right away.
It’s not a new genus, so anything that is genetically/morphologically supported as belonging to this clade and already described there (at least once) can be called that (validly) right away. That’s my understanding, anyway.
I just wonder how we know when it is time to actually use it?
Must we seek a “radical” rather than “conservative” body? Or does everyone come around eventually, with time, like to the name Amanita calyptroderma?
is a Fungal Referee. Many contradicting options exist in our naming/splitting systems, and so few collaborative and stable decision on how to apply them.
Gliophorus is morphologically and genetically well-supported (glutinous cap and stipe, monophyletic within Hygrocybe). Everything so far suggests to me that it should be used. IF is a conservative body, so they haven’t.
Created: 2013-01-20 23:45:14 PST (-0800)
Last modified: 2013-01-20 23:45:17 PST (-0800)
Viewed: 58 times, last viewed: 2016-10-25 09:07:47 PDT (-0700)