[admin – Sat Aug 14 02:01:58 +0000 2010]: Changed location name from ‘Lafayette Reservoir, Contra Costa CO, CA’ to ‘Lafayette Reservoir, Contra Costa Co., California, USA’
|I’d Call It That||3.0||4.52||1|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||5.16||1||(darv)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
I am well aware that professional mycologists have also used the quicky IF pub method. It has also been a godsend, of sorts, for amateurs.
I am not calling this a Cantharellus. Do you see a formal Cantharellus name proposal by me here?
I am pointing out that it is being called a Cantharellus, and has been called such before. That merely indicates to me that we need to dig a bit deeper. Jumping genera usually indicates an uneasy placement.
Maybe we need a new genera altogether for this “black chanterelle?”
A couple of years back I was invited to the Mingo foray in MO, where I spoke about amanitas. Jay Justice was also invited, and gave an extensive talk on Chanterelles and Craterellus. He emphasized that Craterellus were by definition hollow stiped, and tubular in their youth.
Get my point, now?
AT any rate, waiting around for it to be done “right” is a losers game. What is the motivation? It’s already published, and there are so many fish to fry, new species to name!
Which will come first, do you think? The new MDM or an in depth account of these two new species?
Maybe none of the above.
I don’t mean to “pick on” Arora. He is merely the most recent to use this inadequate publication method, and was unlucky enough to be the final straw. Still, my criticisms apply to all who are using IF for their species pubs.
The fact of no peer review for IF species pubs is absurd on the face of it. That’s fine for a blog or a discussion group or a magazine article, but for a “science” publication, to name a new species? Please.
I would like to see less “just believe me, I’m famous or emphatic or blustery!” and more … this is why I believe what I do, and here is the evidence to convince YOU.
I have to agree with many of Debbie’s points here; these brief Index Forgorum publications are in many ways a joke.
In this case we are presented with next to no evidence as to why these are different from the European/eastern NA species.
I personally believe them to be different, but just because I believe something, it does not make it true. Most of this has to do with the IF publishing system; a broken process that is in badly need of repair/junked altogether. The lack of review has made for numerous, critical errors.
It’s not limited “American amateur mycologists”, this quick publishing was kick-started by the “professional mycologist” Dr. Scott Redhead, who gave us 6 new genera in a page and a half PDF.
I also want to point out that the great Finnish Cort couple, Tuula Niskanen and Kare Liimatainen published a lot of new species on IF last year, and a handful more already this year, (including some with Michel Beug…). All the Cort people, (Tuula, Kare, Joe and Dimitar) have been working together on a large backlog of undescribed Cortinarius, usign this format to get stuff out there.
More information about these species will get out there, (I haven’t even had time to post any pictures of the two species I was co-author on). In the digital age we want everything , and we want it now… I can remember many “new” names from the mid 80s that took 20 years to catch on, (especially with boletes), now we have new names being used the day they get published.
As to calling this a Cantharellus, you and IF should know better than that…
I am saying that your argument as presented was invalid. Examples of different species are flying fast and furious here, so don’t assume.
I just want real details for a species novum. Not so unreasonable. There are “Craterellus cinereus” on the east coast, too. How does the western version differ from them, in a substantive way?
Apparently the presence or absence of clamps are also a big deal in delimiting species in Craterellus.
No mention of clamps in the quicky pub by Arora, altho he does say that “hymenial cystidia are not present,” great, except that’s true of all of the chanterelles, enit? And as I said, Craterellus are defined as having hollow stipes. Arora calls the stipe of his atrocinereus “solid,” and makes a point of saying that the primordia are solid, too.
“Hymenium (underside) with distinct thick, blunt-edged anasmatosing folds or gills, gray to blue-gray when fresh. Stipe 1-5 cm long, < 1 cm thick, equal, concolorous with the pileus, solid.”
“This species is not nearly as common as C. calicornucopioides. It differs in not being tubiform when young …”
This puts it closer to Cantharellus than Craterellus in its morphology.
It’s a puzzle that hasn’t been solved, IMO. Like I said, IF is currently listing Craterellus cinereus as Cantharellus cinereus.
This may well be a unique western species, but the evidence presented isn’t very convincing.
so just having a “different host” is not very meaningful, nor a slam dunk for a species novum. Disjunct distributions would of course result in different host species. Look at Amanita phalloides around the world, with over a dozen tree hosts! Many fungi are opportunists. We just like to put them into our boxes, and pretend that’s where they live. Or we only look for them where we already expect to see ’em.
Disjunct species happen. Look at the broad range for Cantharellus roseocanus.
’Twas indeed you “railing” about IF being a clusterfuck below. and here I thought that you had an eidetic memory, too. ;)
ersatz profundity and quasi-clever quips (in a pig’s eye!) won’t win this argument.
As to Arora … there were online arguments (what is the real black chanterelle?) on this topic on various lists a few years ago, with Arora arguing that cinereus was the true “black chanterelle.” I don’t think that it is a dark version of our local Cantharellus species, but the fact of its primordial differences with other Craterellus species makes me curious about just where it falls. DNA trees are nice to see in this case, too, and it really should be the burden of the person or persons publishing species to show how the newly proposed species fits into the rest, especially if one’s argument for a new species is based almost solely on DNA.
Here is an interesting paper on this general topic from 2009, in Mycotaxon:
need not be profound (to human eyes) to be real. But in this case let’s get profound:
1) ecology (different host association – different biochemistry)
2) disjunct biogeography (limited gene flow)
I don’t know who mentioned “railing against unfairness”. I may once have had thought
that taxonomic nomenclature was a uniformly rational or sane process, but at this point
This really isn’t a Cantharellus. Arora’s name ‘black chanterelle’ was colloquial.
Much like Blue Chanterelle – I don’t think he meant it to reflect evolutionary relatedness.
Maybe Pig’s Ears indicates that Gomphus are mammals?
I didn’t attempt to make any claim that short IF publications are desirable, nor that they
are justified. I agree that Dimitar’s Cortinarius certainly don’t fit that bill. But I wasn’t
referring to them, so that’s a bit beside the point.
the authors are claiming differences between these species and their very close, morphologically similar relatives. So, how and where are those profound to the point of novel species differences delimited?
Rather than “rail” against the “unfairness” of IF not immediately accepting a published new name, I applaud the fact that they actually allow for the vetting of these new names, rather than blindly accepting them.
Just cause you propose something, doesn’t mean that it will be accepted. How many name changes have most of these fungi already been through? Our knowledge is constantly changing, and we must change right along with it.
BTW Christian, I cannot recall just which IF pub it was of yours, but I thought that you did an exemplary job on your documentation. So, it CAN be done, and frankly, it should be done, by everyone, unless you are merely switching a species to a new genera due to genus changes/restrictions, like in the case of putting former Boletus species (now restricted to porcini only) into their more appropriate genus Xerocomellus.
I am not just whistling in the wind over the Cantharellus/Craterellus designation either. IF lists the preferred name for Craterellus cinereus as Cantharellus cinereus!
This debate has been going on for a while now.
Haven’t we all along been calling our local gilled Craterellus the true black chanterelle? Arora certainly was. They are heftier than cornucopioides, have a different fragrance, and b’gosh, altho I have never seen their primordia, they apparently lack the defining feature of a Craterellus, that hollow stipe, in their youth. Sure woulda been nice to have seen that feature in that publication.
Mayhaps ’tis merely a bit of convergent evolution that brings them to that hollow state?
And your claim of “well known species only” as a justification for these quicky IF publications doesn’t wash. DB just published several new corts, in the very same field guide brief style. Can’t blame it on Beug, either; he didn’t even know he was being added to DB’s publication until I wrote him! I have no idea if Ammirati was alerted before the fact. I suspect that both cort factions were simu-working on that species novum.
I understand that it is not just American amateur mycologists doing this. I have seen a number of IF quicky pubs from European mycologists, too.
Yes, it would be nice to have ‘deep details’ in the publication, but names like this
are importantly different from more truly novel species descriptions – this is a very well-known species, both to general taxonomists and pot-hunters. It’s more of an assertion of already-suspected difference, rather than truly introducing the world to a species it had not been aware of.
And no, a slightly different developmental pattern doesn’t make it a Cantharellus…
As for Paul Kirk, IF, new names, it’s a clusterf**k. My least favorite parts of mushroom taxonomy, embodied.
“atrocinereus” is not yet an accepted species on IF, even tho it was just published on IF! Where are the deep details for this publication of a “new” species?
Where are the photos of the important features, like the fact of the young mushrooms NOT being tubular?
And IF that is really true, wouldn’t this really be a Cantharellus and not a Craterellus at all?
I would advise a bit of patience on these quicky pubs. Less is NOT more.
Great shot of the ridges! They are not usually so interveinous.
Created: 2010-03-24 23:59:01 EDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2015-06-22 13:20:18 EDT (-0400)
Viewed: 224 times, last viewed: 2017-06-06 20:38:10 EDT (-0400)