Observation 85108: Hygrocybe pratensis var. pallida (Cooke) Arnolds
When: 2011-12-24
Herbarium specimen reported

Notes: Syn.: Camarophyllus pratensis (Fr.) P. Kumm.
Hygrophorus pratensis (Fr.) Fr.
Hygrocybe pratensis (Fr.) Murrill

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Yes Dave
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2012-03-16 08:05:10 PDT (-0700)

what most people are interpreting as X pratensis var. pallidus, is a taxon with different habitus than this obs, looking more like a very fleshy X virgineus.
It was originally described from the British islands, and some authors have also raised it to species level and named it after the first ones to describe it, but without putting a name on it (Berkeley & Broome 1873), as X berkeleyi.
If X borealis is the same species, then I guess that should be the current name – but it needs to be investigated first..

Another species name that has apparently
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2012-03-16 07:31:00 PDT (-0700)

been applied to this type of mushroom is X borealis f. salmoneus.

My gut feeling is that this type of mushroom does represent something different than X pratensis. I find the tannish to brownish X pratensis around here in a variety of habitat, usually in open areas. There’s one spot where I find the pallid type. It’s a runoff area in a hardwood forest. I have collected the pallid type there during several different years, and it always looks the same, chalky white with a bit of a peachy flush on the cap. The posts of this pallid type that I’ve viewed here on MO all look pretty much the same.

I’m not convinced
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2012-03-16 02:17:35 PDT (-0700)

that this is what originally was described as X pratensis var. pallida.
This looks to me like a very pale pratensis, but not necessarily that particular variety (probably not).

Discussion on the Camarophyllus page
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2012-03-14 07:07:06 PDT (-0700)

I’m very excited that there’s discussion happening on the nomenclature of Camarophyllus since it has been completely unclear to me for many years (not that I’ve spent a huge amount of time on it). I encourage those who are interested to move the discussion to the Camarophyllus page.

Hmm..
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2012-03-14 05:46:16 PDT (-0700)

Tell me, how can an arbitrarily chosen type species solve this..?

Singer
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2012-03-14 05:22:36 PDT (-0700)

Rolph Singer solved all of this in 1951 by placing the type species as Camarophyllus pratensis.

Camarophyllus sensu Singer (based on H. pratensis) is a synonym of Cuphophyllus but takes precedence over the later.

Thanks Andreas
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2012-03-14 04:53:55 PDT (-0700)

It looks like a problem, that the first mentioned species in Fries subtribe Camarophylli was Agaricus camarophyllus.

..but such facts haven’t been accepted as valid arguments in other discussions, for example which type species should be connected with the genus Clitocybe (Agaricus giganteus was the first mentioned species in tribe Clitocybe by Fries – not nebularis, not gibba..)

The first time Camarophyllus was published at genus level, by Kummer, virgineus was the first and main species.

I suspected that this had to do with stupid nomenclature rules..

Camarophyllus vs. Cuphophyllus
By: Andreas (AK_CCM)
2012-03-14 03:13:05 PDT (-0700)

Camarophyllus is the older and more common name instead of Cuphophyllus. But as I know a controverse dispute exists about the type of the genus. Some see Agaricus camarophyllus as the type species – a member of the genus Hygrophorus. But this would make Camarophyllus to a synonym of Hygrophorus. To avoid any complications I use the uncritical genus Cuphophyllus. However this isn’t the last word for future I guess.

Noah
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2012-03-14 01:08:21 PDT (-0700)

Perhaps the problem with separating the group from Hygrocybe, has to do with the alternatives – shall they be named Camarophyllus or Cuphophyllus..?
But why shouldn’t it be Camarophyllus?

Dave
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2012-03-14 00:55:36 PDT (-0700)

That is a very good question! If var. pallidus is another species, it should of course have its own name, and not variety rank.
Who knows exactly what “Camarophyllus pratensis var. pallidus” is??

I found another recent study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3160800/
In fig. 4, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...
there’s a tree that shows something named Hygrophorus pratensis var. pallida, closer to H. lacmus and quite distant from H. pratensis.

But be aware that pratensis var. pallida can, and has been, interpreted in different ways. We don’t know what that one looked like. It’s apparently not a pratensis(!)
For example, there is one large, sturdy white species (sometimes named berkeleyi and by some interpreted as a white form of pratensis, by others as something closer to virginea) that might fit on that place in the tree.
Have a look here:
http://www.mushroomexpert.com/...

I don’t think that is the same taxon as Oluna’s collection, which I beleive can be merely an albino form of pratensis.

Is
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2012-03-13 23:40:00 PDT (-0700)

pratensis going to end up in Cuphophyllus?

To me, an amateur…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2012-03-13 18:40:18 PDT (-0700)

the isssue is whether this is x – pratensis or x – pratensis var. pallidus.

For the purpose of official taxonomy — which does tend to change from time to time — the genus name is significant. But for someone who has collected x -pratensis as well as what appears to be a pale form of x – pratensis, the question is… are these different species?

Let me try to change the name to Camarophyllus pratensis var. pallidus (Cooke) J.E. Lange
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2012-03-13 14:13:26 PDT (-0700)

Mission accomplished!

Some stupid nomenclature rules..?
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2012-03-13 14:08:25 PDT (-0700)

No, the nomenclature rules have nothing to do with this problem. MO follows quite closely the Index/Species Fungorum that has a tendency to lump the species into larger genera (cf. Hygrocybe sensu lato or Entoloma sensu latissimo). The MO name is then a result of the consensus and the people who originally posted that particular observation, have to go with the changes made by the consensus.

Let me try to change the name to Camarophyllus pratensis var. pallidus (Cooke) J.E. Lange. – Adolf

Okay, new to me.
By: Gerhard Koller (Gerhard)
2012-03-13 09:56:49 PDT (-0700)

So they split back again? O those taxonomists :)

Camarophyllus
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2012-03-13 09:52:52 PDT (-0700)

as a genus of its own is well supported, both by phylogeny and morphology, but I have no idea why the proposals aren’t accepted yet. Some stupid nomenclature rules..?

Here’s a tree from this paper:
http://nature.berkeley.edu/...

Camarophyllus pratensis (Fr.) P. Kumm. is “valid”
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2012-03-13 09:39:01 PDT (-0700)

There is no doubt that Camarophyllus pratensis (Fr.) P. Kumm. is “valid”!

6.2. Valid publication of names is publication in accordance with Art. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 or H.9 (see also Art. 61).

This is the wording of the old International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (IBCN), Vienna Code. The new, International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN) might have made this definition even more simple.

If you recognize the sickly looking pale sporocarps as a separate variety of Camarophyllus pratensis, the valid name for it would be Camarophyllus pratensis var. pallidus (Cooke) J.E. Lange. It’s up to you, if you want to use _Hygrocybe pratensis" or Camarophyllus pratensis, the mushroom itself does not care!

It’s long since Camarophyllus is no longer valid,
By: Gerhard Koller (Gerhard)
2012-03-13 09:29:36 PDT (-0700)

I think it never really was accepted but I may err.
It was the same long time ago with Cuphophyllus.
But I agree I despise the DNA people more and more :)

OK guys (and gals), help me out here…
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2012-03-13 09:09:18 PDT (-0700)

What is going on with our waxy caps??! Camarophyllus is no longer valid? I thought that there were microscopic features that delimited it…the interwoven gill trama. So now that isn’t important? Is this all DNA info that negates the evidence of our eyes?

This is starting my morning off on the wrong foot!!!

Dude, where’s my logic train?

Created: 2011-12-24 19:53:35 PST (-0800)
Last modified: 2012-03-16 10:51:09 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 449 times, last viewed: 2016-11-05 08:51:21 PDT (-0700)
Show Log