Observation 207386: Lentinus crinitus group
When: 2015-06-12
No herbarium specimen

Notes: Always one of the more common mushrooms in the area and this June was no exception.

Proposed Names

17% (2)
Recognized by sight
56% (1)
Used references: Pegler monograph
28% (1)
Recognized by sight
86% (1)
Eye3 Eyes3
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
“Cumbersome” is a little bit of
By: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)
2015-06-24 07:38:25 PDT (-0700)

an understatement I would venture to say.
It’s not like Lentinus crinitus is a totally invalid name or a European name like Cantharellus cibarius or Helvella lacunosa, which people used until someone did some serious studies.
Also, you seem to put a lot of weight on a 1983 British monograph.
By the way, there was a recent publication that is kind of interesting..
“Phylogenetic relationships and morphological evolution in Lentinus, Polyporellus and Neofavolus, emphasizing southeastern Asian taxa.” by Jaya Seelan Sathiy, L. Nagy, A. Justo, E. Grand, S. Redhead, & D. Hibbett.

Getting back to your offer of a compromise, of all the cumbersome or garbage bin alternatives thus far proposed, I would go with your earlier suggestion of “Lentinus crinitus group”.

that your sightings,
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2015-06-24 00:31:30 PDT (-0700)

across west TX and east LA, may or may not be all the same thing, is one thing. Asserting that they are all L. crinitus when, by all outward appearances, no one really knows what that sp. is supposed to be — macromorphologically, micromorphologically, phylogenetically — is another entirely.

I know it’s easier to call them all L. crinitus, but that doesn’t make it more correct. For searchability’s sake, all these Lentinus subgenus Lentinus section Lentinus obs could have L. crinitus as a supplemental proposal, and then be locatable via the L. crinitus name page under “Similar Observations,” cumbersome though it may be. It’s a matter of reconciling taxonomic validity with popular accesibility, and I recognize the difficulty in making those things coexist with one another. There is a compromise here, somewhere…

I agree up to a point,
By: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)
2015-06-23 19:38:17 PDT (-0700)

but until we get a Lentinologist to clear things up, why not keep it simple for people just trying to find examples of what they are finding in the SE and see in all the field guides.
I’ve seen a lot of of these Lentinus in east Texas and west La. over the years, and they all look like the same species to me. They are certainly the dominant Lentinus species in the area and match well with the popular field guides. They are a sturdy species and do have some color variations depending on their age and weather conditions, but to my eyes, quite distinctive.
Until somebody comes up with a good alternative name for them, I don’t see the advantage of fogging up the window.

where to draw the line, then?
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2015-06-23 18:37:48 PDT (-0700)

do all hairy Lentini deserve the name L. crinitus? that’s essentially how most popular (and even a fair bit of peer reviewed) literature have treated the genus for decades, in spite of its known diversity.

Lentinus subgenus Lentinus section Lentinus is Pegler’s cumbersome way of basically saying the L. crinitus group, a name to which I have no objections using instead if it’s name recognition you’re advocating for, but perpetuating the misapplication of a specific name to a group of species sharing certain common characteristics is a trend we would all do well to move away from, both on and offline. We are in not so different territory here as with Ganoderma lucidum, Scutellinia scutellata, Xylaria polymorpha and X. hypoxylon, Bisporella citrina, etc., etc., etc.

The trouble is that no one has adopted the genus to bring it into the 21st century. We have conflicting descriptions from the last (only?) person to attempt to monograph it, particularly with respect to what is supposed to (but may not necessarily) be its most widespread species (L. crinitus). The Hibbett lab has done some molecular work but has not, to my knowledge, produced a key or an updated description of the true L. crinitus and/or its lookalikes. There is an unpublished dissertation by Edward Grand, reportedly available through the successor to University Microfilms. I have asked Juan Luis Mata for help, but his expertise is much more in Lentinula than Lentinus.

Long story short, we need a Lentinologist, and I don’t know where to find one.

I know we’ve gone through this before with this species
By: Ron Pastorino (Ronpast)
2015-06-23 17:05:11 PDT (-0700)

and a few others. My objection to throwing this very common mushroom into a large genus garbage bin is that diminishes the value of the observation to the general viewing public and serves no real practical value. It may be technically correct that this is probably not Lentinus crinitus, but every field guide published to date lists it as so(or at least to a name that can be traced to the current one). My feeling is that until somebody gives it a good name, I would prefer it remain a name that the majority of people using the site can easily research and relate to. Notes stating it’s shaky status can be included for those purists who are interested and/or can access hard to obtain papers.
My opinion only and it’s just a point of view, but as an originator of an observation, i’d like to see more latitude given to someone like myself in this kind of situation.

Created: 2015-06-22 17:47:37 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2015-07-06 18:04:03 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 118 times, last viewed: 2016-11-26 07:59:48 PST (-0800)
Show Log