Notes: A common species frutiting throughout the second half of summer in our relic pine (Pinus sylvestris) forest.
|I’d Call It That||3.0||16.05||3||(ressaure,Evica)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||8.96||2|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
The most recent publication on this subject ignored my input. The question is basically "When did Gunnerus publish his _Agaricus citrinus? Before or after Schaeffer published his Agaricus citrinus [the one that became Amanita citrina]? The answer is very clear and was researched by Dr. Don Pfister and his colleagues at the Farlow Libary. Johan Ernst Gunnerus published the name first in 1772. What confuses the issue is that someone was not aware (as Don Pfister and colleagues were) that a version of of Gunnerus’ publication of 1776 was an exact duplicate of his 1772 publication. They did not know of the 1772 date; so they maintain the Gunnerus name is not older than Schaeffer’s name (published in 1773). But that doesn’t fit the facts.
OK, so Agaricus citrinus Schaeffer is what is called a junior homonym, and such names are illegitimate. [But the name could be used at the rank of variety.] In the same publication in which Schaeffer name his citrinus, he also named his Agaricus bulbosus. So far as we know, he was the first person to make this combination. Since I don’t hear any disagreement about the white and yellow mushrooms we’re discussing both being in the same genus, we are in luck because here’s a name that applies to what we used to call Amanita citrina var. alba…and it’s a legitimate name. Hooray. It’s just not familiar to us (yet). There are also several other usages of bulbosa in Amanita which will be confusing for everyone. However, good ol’ Lamarck (unjustly blamed, according to Stephen Jay Gould, of believing that giraffes necks got long because they stretched for leaves to eat and somehow there offspring benefitted from a nongenetic event)…good ol’ Lamarck zipped in their and transferred Agaricus bulbosus Schaeffer to an Amanita before any more confusing things could happen. Terrific. The first use of bulbosa in Amanita is Lamarck’s recombination of Schaeffer’s name. We have a valid name to hang on the genus we called citrina. The only problem is citrina becomes the non-type variety now. And the old “var. alba” now is the type variety and automatically has the name var. bulbosa.
The book by D. H. Pfister, J. R. Boise, and M. A. Eifler is A bibliography of taxonomic mycological literature 1753-1821 which comprises Mycologia Memoir 17 (1990).
What do we do with other taxa that are called varieties of citrina at present? The wisest thing to do is to use the old name until some one throughly reviews these taxa one by one and finds out whether they are really varieties of any already named species. There is a very good chance that they are not. It just seems hasty pudding to me to rush these critters in to the bulbosa corral when they may not belong their. The names are perfectly well defined by their types; but very few such taxa have been thoroughly reviewed by a modern Amanita taxonomist (of which there are blessed few).
I hope this helps.
I’m going to post this and worry about the misspellings later. Remember where this is guys. I really don’t want to write this again. :-)
I just don’t know what it is. Links please.
I’m glad we are using the right names now. Since there is no A. citrina where does that leave f. lavendula?
The amount of incorrect information about the nomenclature of this species has gotten to the point at which it is more than I want to deal with on MO. I’ve spent too much time this afternoon trying to straighten it out. I propose that we stop using “citrina” and “citrina var. alba”, which are no longer accepted names. I tried to stick with the familiar names, but I see that chaos is ensuing. The simplest thing to do is to use the correct names.
The correct name for “Amanita citrina var. alba” is Amanita bulbosa (Schaeff.) Lam.
The correct name for “Amanita citrina” is “Amanita bulbosa var. citrina (Schaeff.) Gillet”. It’s hard enough for me to keep those two names straight, not to mention having to deal with all the chaotic nomenclatural history (right and wrong) that seems to have gotten amassed over the years on MO.
Let’s just use the current correct names.
Created: 2010-02-25 06:32:51 CST (-0500)
Last modified: 2012-07-12 15:33:52 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 246 times, last viewed: 2016-05-13 07:37:58 CDT (-0400)