Observation 28526: Leucoagaricus flammeotinctus
When: 2009-11-07
No herbarium specimen

Proposed Names

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
Leucoagaricus flammeatinctus nom. prov.
By: else
2016-09-20 10:57:34 PDT (-0700)

if you want to put it in that genus !

By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2016-09-20 10:37:10 PDT (-0700)

If you’re checking MO right now… which name should we be using? Should “Vellinga” be in the nom. prov.?

By: Erin Page Blanchard (CureCat)
2009-11-21 00:27:08 PST (-0800)

Yeah, I figured out that the two are synonymous after reading the notes on the other observation.

I tend to agree with you on using names that have not yet been published, I think. Another example of the folks on this site jumping the gun was using the name Amanita amerimuscaria before it was actually published, haha. The word gets out quick with this crowd, it seems!

“nom. prov.” seems like the best choice for thus unpublished names or synonyms. I don’t know whether Else would prefer to be credited in the name or not.

Ok, but one thing it isn’t two different names here…
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2009-11-20 23:41:07 PST (-0800)

One thing is that Debbie doesn’t have to put two names for the same species on this one. The synonym and how it should be done is the question here. Personally, I think we should try and stick to what has been published if possible. Like we were all hanging out with the name Cantherellus californicus until it finally got published (or Boletus rex-veris).

But since the name has gotten into use here, then Lepiota flammeatincta should get a synonym with “Leucoagaricus flammeatincta nom prov.”. The question is should it be “Leucoagaricus flammeatincta nom prov. Vellinga”?

By: Joshua Birkebak (Shua)
2009-11-20 14:05:54 PST (-0800)

Well we use the name provisionally to reflect it’s true relationship until the nomenclatural problems are sorted out…
Sometimes the nomenclature can get in the way of science but it is more important to have a consistent set of rules for naming else all would be chaos!

And this mushrooms macroscopically does look a ton like a Lepiota at least based on cap and scale appearance (I just recently found something similar that I thought was a Lepiota until I scoped it). The ring is a character that can help separate these genera often. Lepiota rings in my experience are either shaggy or somewhat pendant and not so neatly upturned and sleeve like as in Leucoagaricus…

By: Erin Page Blanchard (CureCat)
2009-11-20 13:14:26 PST (-0800)

Oops, sorry. I just saw observation 28471

Although it should be in Leucoagaricus, if it has not been formally renamed yet, should we really use that nomenclature??
’Cause if so, I am going to make some major deprecations to the Psilocybe on here, hahaha.

But really, I am rather conflicted between relying on a standard (ICBN) and my feeling that a lot of the rules further obscure the taxonomy and often inhibit the advancement in integrating phylogenetics with taxonomy so that the names actually reflect the organisms relationships.

It would be good to get Else’s opinion on this particular matter.

By: Erin Page Blanchard (CureCat)
2009-11-20 13:12:25 PST (-0800)

Leucoagaricus flammeatincta???

I don’t recall hearing about any name change, and IF has no record of any name other than Lepiota flammeatincta.

Did Else fill you in on the findings of some unpublished work?

I would be surprised if this mushroom was a Leucoagaricus, as the stature is much more like a Lepiota, even though the reddening is more common with Leucoagaricus.

Created: 2009-11-20 04:33:25 PST (-0800)
Last modified: 2016-09-21 08:06:39 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 88 times, last viewed: 2016-10-23 15:19:07 PDT (-0700)
Show Log