|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||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
Maybe the photos give a wrong idea about the cap color, but this was yellow though pale; It also discoloured more when drying becoming almost white.
Thanks, Dr. Tulloss, to call my attention to this particularity.
It seems to me that the cap color in this case is white.
If that is the case, the name would be Amanita bulbosa. A lot of people nowadays tell me that there is no genetic difference between var. citrina and the type variety (var. bulbosa). Under these circumstances, people could judge that the varieties should not be distinguished. Hence, the name would (again) just be Amanita bulbosa.
If you don’t do nomenclatural stuff on a frequent basis you tend to make mistakes…even though you have read the latest version of the Code.
And you can get your head handed to you by a nomenclatural expert if you are caught making a mistake. When you publish a paper it is absolutely necessary to obtain a nomenclatural expert as a reviewer.
If I didn’t have good back up on this particular name, I think I might have hesitated saying anything or would have gone to one of acquaintances with the right expertise before saying anything.
explanation. I believe you know much more about names than me, so I will change the name for this observation accordingly.
There is an obscure publication that is often cited with the wrong date. The correct date changes things to the state that is reflected on WAO.
In 1772 Gunnerus published Agaricus citrinus. This is the first appearance of the citrinus/aepithet combined in the genus Agaricus after the starting date of mycological nomenclature. Hence, because of priority of Gunnerus’ name, when Schaeffer created the name Agaricus citrinus for what we now call an Amanita he created an illegitimate name. When the combination in Amanita by Persoon was made, the basionym was illegitimate. The result is an illegitmate name at species rank. The first legitimate name for the same species is Agaricus bulbosus which applied to the white variant (or the white variety) of the entity. If a separate name is desired at a rank below species, then citrina (Schaeffer’s name) can be applied to that intraspecific entity.
There has been an argument over the original date of publication of Gunnerus’ name. However, I have relied on the expertise of Dr. Donald Pfister who has studied pre-Friesian fungal names and their original publications. He assures me that Gunnerus published the same information twice, with the earliest date being 1772. When people don’t know of the first publication, they think mistakenly that Gunnerus’ name was published after Schaeffers “Agaricus citrinus,” with the consequence that Persoon recombined a legitimate name, etc., etc.
I didn´t find the name A. citrina in amanitaceae.org and saw A. bulbosa var citrina instead; then I consult Index Fungorum and saw the following records:
Amanita bulbosa Pers. 1801, (also see Species Fungorum: Amanita citrina); Amanitaceae
Amanita citrina Pers. 1797, (also see Species Fungorum: Amanita citrina); Amanitaceae
Since the data referred for the latter is older than the one for the former, I stayed with A. citrina, which is the name commonly used here. Is there anything in the contrary?
Meanwhile I uploaded some photos from the microscopy.
Created: 2014-11-08 14:48:16 EST (-0500)
Last modified: 2014-11-09 16:11:17 EST (-0500)
Viewed: 36 times, last viewed: 2015-11-20 18:08:50 EST (-0500)