|User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
“As a consequence of our results, Leccinum could be interpreted as a single heterogenous clade (except L. eximium). However, molecular delimitation between the species with yellowish flesh and/or hymenophore (2, 3 and 4) and the species with whitish flesh and hymenophore ( I ) is quite clear and substantiated by additional features. Based on the combination of characteristics mentioned above the genus Leccinum should be restricted to the sections Leccinum and Scabra. The remaining boletes in discussion have to be removed from Leccinum. Until more helpful insights can be presented the relevant species should be kept in the genus Boletus. A final re-evaluation of Leccinum towards a natural classification should be based on additional sequence data and chemical analysis of the affiliated representatives of Austroboletus (Corner)Wolfe and the gastroid genus Chamonixia Roll.”
group is that they don’t seem to me to be true Leccinums (at least I’m not convinced yet) but since Boletus is ALREADY a polyphyletic mess why not keep them there and adopt Smiths but heading “SECTION Pseudoleccinum”. In this he makes B. rubropunctus the type and the segregate species are subglabripes, hortonii, longicurvipes and sphaerocystis. This makes more sense to me than erecting a new genus or shuffling them back and forth between leccinum and Boletus in the broad sense of those .
It was me who did that… subglabripes was being called Leccinum when I first posted rubropunctus and rather then have one up as Boletus and one as Leccinum I made mine Leccinum. I think Douglas said something about it that made me change it…
Boletus. it’s another case of two incorrect names being used, It’s not a Leccinum nor is it a Boletus. They form a well defined group (_Pseudoleccinum)in the DNA trees so why not elevate this group to it’s own genus…
If you want to spend your night reading about this.
And like last time, I don’t think this is B. rubropunctus either…
I see that Boletus rubropunctus is listed as a deprecated name here on MO. Many times I have found names deprecated when there is little or no evidence for such an action. (I’m not saying that’s the case here, I don’t know.) You can always force MO to use the name you want and if you really feel that the name should not be deprecated you can also change that (I’ve done that with several names.).
rather that Boletus rubropuntus because I’m not too facile with this site and MO did not like my suggestion of Boletus rubropunctus and supplied the name Leccinum rubropunctum FOR ME.
Both names…Boletus rubropunctus Peck and Leccinum rubropunctum (Peck) Singer are valid names. You can examine the evidence from alpha-taxonomy and molecular studies and decide which name best fits the evidence you have. In this case, I don’t know the mushroom, have not studied the question, and do not have an opinion on what is correct.
In some cases ONE name may be the correct one (for example the name as been conserved), in other cases it’s taxonomic judgment amongst the choices.
it seems clear that many of A. Smith’s beliefs about certain groups of boletes were in opposition to Singer’s concepts. Two of the most striking are the “pseudo-leccinums” and the genus Xerocomus. Smith chose to keep rubropuntus, longicurvipes, subglabripes in Boletus and he refused to acknowledge the validity of Xerocomus as a generic concept. It’s true as Mike points out that Singer placed rubropuntus and it’s cohorts in Leccinum but so what? As Smith points out the pseudo-leccinums have two macro features that Leccinum in the strict sense does not: 1.Yellow flesh and pore mouths 2. Caulocystidia (scabers) that DO NOT darken with age. So I guess what my real question is who decided we should accept Singers generic concept for this mushroom rather than Pecks or Smith & Thiers?
According to Index Fungorum, Boletus rubropunctus Peck was transferred to Leccinum by Singer in 1947 on page 117 of Vol. 37 of the “American Midland Naturalist”. If you access to JSTOR, you can get the article:
Singer, R. (1947). The Boletoideae of Florida. The Boletineae of Florida with notes on extralimital species. III. Am. Mid. Nat. 37: 1-135.
while i’m ahead
:( :( :(
for me this is not leccinum maybe xerocomus
is from? And by the same token is the rest of this cohort (Boletus longicuvipes, B. subglabripes) also now placed in Leccinum? Thanks.
Created: 2010-07-22 15:38:09 EDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2015-02-18 14:35:21 EST (-0500)
Viewed: 205 times, last viewed: 2017-07-03 10:47:21 EDT (-0400)