Observation 79067: Connopus acervatus (Fr.) K.W. Hughes, Mather & R.H. Petersen

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Connopus acervatus (Fr.) W. Hughes, Mather & R.H. Petersen has been validly published
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2011-10-13 07:09:16 PDT (-0700)

I consulted Dr. John McNeil, the former editor of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, and his answer was, “I am quite happy to accept Connopus acervatus (Fr.) W. Hughes, Mather & R.H. Petersen as validly published. I just considered it debateable …” I go with that decision. Adolf

Ok
By: Robert Sasata (Sasata)
2011-10-12 14:00:34 PDT (-0700)

Thanks for explaining. Cheers, Robert

Not intentional
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2011-10-12 13:52:39 PDT (-0700)

I contacted the authors and they told me that they realized this omission and wanted to print an Erratum with those two lines I mentioned. After they consulted somebody who knew the rules, they were told that it was not necessary. I asked my guru who knows the Code better than anyone else and I am waiting for his answer. Your suggestion to describe a genus without any species is not allowed. Adolf

intentional?
By: Robert Sasata (Sasata)
2011-10-12 11:24:05 PDT (-0700)

I don’t have any issue with the study results either, but was thinking maybe, because of the existence of two (or more) populations of “iGymnopus acervatusi”, the authors intentionally didn’t want to explicitly make the new combination before further phylogenetic analysis, and instead were content with just defining the new genus. This is my interpretation of the results (but I’m just speculating) …

No problem with the study results
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2011-10-11 19:20:01 PDT (-0700)

The work is good and it contains a lot of excellent information. I can imagine how much time and energy their DNA work took. It is a pity that the proposed name has not been formally correct. The following two lines make all the difference:
Connopus acervatus (Fr.) Peterson comb.nov.
Basionym: Agaricus acervatus Fr.
The reviewers did not make a good job. AC

More analysis required
By: Robert Sasata (Sasata)
2011-10-11 18:10:13 PDT (-0700)

Apparently “Gymnopus acervatus” specimens fall into 1 of 2 clades: a western North American and an Eastern North American/European clade. The difference between ITS sequences of clade 1 and 2 is close to the percent sequence divergence suggested for different molecular species (2.99-3.8), and it is not yet known whether these populations are reproductively isolated, or even if the eastern NA/European populations should be considered conspecific.

Connopus acervatus was not validly published
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2011-10-11 13:31:42 PDT (-0700)

Yes, I read the article, but I could not find any mention to “Connopus acervatus” as a new combination. Check the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (now the International Code of Nomenclature for [the whole bag of non-animals], especially the Article 33.1:

http://www.ibot.sav.sk/icbn/main.htm

There are similar examples cited as rejected names in Article 33.1, Ex. 2:

“Ex. 2. Combinations not validly published: Rafinesque’s statement under Blephilia that “Le type de ce genre est la Monarda ciliata Linn.” (in J. Phys. Chim. Hist. Nat. Arts 89: 98. 1819) does not constitute valid publication of the combination B. ciliata, since Rafinesque did not definitely associate the epithet ciliata with the generic name Blephilia. Similarly, the combination Eulophus peucedanoides is not to be attributed to Bentham & Hooker (Gen. Pl. 1: 885. 1867) on the basis of their listing of “Cnidium peucedanoides, H. B. et K.” under Eulophus."

I hope the somebody will fix it soon. Until then, it is more correct to use Gymnopus acervatus, Collybia acervata or even Agaricus acervatus than Connopus acervatus.

Adolf

Why not Connopus acervatus?
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2011-10-09 20:02:32 PDT (-0700)

Do you disagree with the contents of Mycologia 102(6), Page 1467 (2010)?

Created: 2011-10-09 00:14:56 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2011-10-13 08:34:25 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 292 times, last viewed: 2016-10-22 06:19:42 PDT (-0700)
Show Log