|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||10.19||2||(Herbert Baker,Claude Kaufholtz-Couture)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
Depending on who you ask. Anyone can rename fungi, its up to you to decide if you want to accept the new name or use a different valid name.
Personally I would accept Lactifluus if there were other non-latex producing mushrooms between that and Lactarius in a phylogenetic tree. If not I would reject it and use a broader sense of Lactarius. I haven’t seen an updated tree of the Russulaceae though so for now I am just using Lactarius.
I study all this from my part with the adequate documents.
One taxon, one name. It cannot be both Lactarius and Lactifluus.
Je comprends, et je te remercie !
I understand, sincerely!
If you don’t accept or prefer not to use a different genus name then you can continue to use some other valid legitimate name. Any current name is a matter of consensus. That is why synonyms are linked together.
Do we have to accept Lactifluus hygrophoroides or continue with Lactarius?
Created: 2014-08-06 19:14:32 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2014-08-07 12:04:57 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 214 times, last viewed: 2017-01-07 06:16:05 PST (-0800)