Observation 196990: Entoloma subgenus Leptonia (Fr. : Fr.) Noordel.
When: 2015-01-08
No herbarium specimen

Proposed Names

46% (2)
Recognized by sight
31% (2)
Recognized by sight
28% (1)
Recognized by sight

Please login to propose your own names and vote on existing names.

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Good genus / bad genus
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2015-10-23 20:43:43 PDT (-0700)

It is said that Leptonia is a bad genus because some of them were found inside of Entoloma. Whether you choose to take some of Leptonia and keep it as a valid genus and move the rest to Entoloma or move all to Entoloma is a matter of personal preference. Either way is fine with me, but if you choose to retain Leptonia then you can’t easily look at a Leptonia-like mushroom and know if it is in Entoloma or Leptonia. Since the genus lines are arbitrary, I prefer to draw them at places where it is easy to tell morphologically which genus each thing is. This makes me a bit more of a lumper than some people who prefer to split large genera up into lots of smaller genera that can’t be told apart without sequencing.

ugh
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2015-03-15 19:56:22 PDT (-0700)

naively, I dive into our rat’s nest of Entolomataceae genera thinking I can get our many inconsistently deprecated/approved names into a state of order, only to be reminded that the family is still a mess, regardless of how one website or another decides to arrange the taxonomic hierarchy.

What confuses me most is how combinations within Leptonia can be valid if the reigning conventional taxonomic wisdom of the moment says that Leptonia is a bad genus. Basically, for Leptonia the genus to be deprecated (bearing in mind that our system of nomenclatural priority is a more simplified, binary version of nomenclature itself) but species within Leptonia to be valid seems contradictory. IF’s imperfections and occasional slowness to adopt the latest taxonomic trends aside, there are no less than five examples of this in their records:

Leptonia foliomarginata
Leptonia bispora
Leptonia carnea
Leptonia occidentalis
Leptonia quinquecolor

with one of those (L. foliomarginata) being recombined as recently as 2014. That means Tim Baroni feels good enough about Leptonia as a genus to be populating it with member species. Does that inherently, automatically make Leptonia a “good” taxonomic idea? Does that vindicate/retroactively validate previous Leptonia combinations? If so, how many? All? Some? How about papers like these coming out of the Neotropics?

http://www.biodiversidade.pgibt.ibot.sp.gov.br/...

Does that give defacto validation to Paraeccilia, Trichopilus and Calliderma as genera? If not, that’s like saying I still have a kitchen in a house that doesn’t exist anymore.

My head hurts.

Created: 2015-01-24 13:15:36 PST (-0800)
Last modified: 2015-10-23 20:40:20 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 62 times, last viewed: 2016-10-21 09:54:16 PDT (-0700)
Show Log