Observation 96997: Pluteus chrysophlebius (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Sacc.
When: 2012-06-10
No herbarium specimen
0 Sequences

Proposed Names

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
All very interesting…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2012-06-12 12:06:45 CDT (-0400)

But thanks for not downgrading my confidence level for the “admirabilis” proposal. That’s what the mushroom is called in all the current field guides.

This collection was made during a mushroom club foray, where most of the members are beginners. If the club members view this obs and think that the mushroom is not what is called “Pluteus admirabilis” in their books, then this will promote little more than confusion for this group of people.

Thanks for the input, Fredo. The explanation is very clear.

Nomenclature
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2012-06-12 10:54:30 CDT (-0400)

Thanks Fredo. I did not know that.

Walt
By: Alfredo Justo (Fredo)
2012-06-12 08:28:21 CDT (-0400)

chrysophlebius is older than admirabilis

Agaricus chrysophlebius Berk. & M.A. Curtis 1859

Agaricus admirabilis Peck 1872

For purposes of nomenclatural priority the only date that matters is the date when the basionym was published. It does not matter which one of the two was recombined in Pluteus first. If you consider that admirabilis and chrysophlebius are the same species (and all current evidence points to that) then chrysophlebius should be used

Fredo
By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2012-06-11 22:39:55 CDT (-0400)

Pluteus admirabilis was named a couple years before P. chrysophlebius so why does the latter have preference?

the correct name is chrysophlebius
By: Alfredo Justo (Fredo)
2012-06-11 18:18:04 CDT (-0400)

both admirabilis and chrysophlebius have been used for this taxon but P. chrysophlebius has preference

Created: 2012-06-10 21:11:50 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2012-06-12 10:55:01 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 128 times, last viewed: 2017-06-13 03:42:56 CDT (-0400)
Show Log