Name: Agrocybe dura
Author: (Bolton) Singer
Citation: Beihefte zum Botanischen Zentralblatt 56: 165 (1936) [MB#356857]
Deprecated Synonyms: Agrocybe vermiflua, Pholiota dura (Bolton) P. Kumm., Agaricus durus Bolton, Hylophila dura (Bolton) Quél., Togaria dura (Bolton) W.G. Sm., Agaricus vermifluus Peck, Pholiota vermiflua (Peck) Sacc.
Agaricus durus Bolton, An History of Fungusses, Growing about Halifax 2: 67, pl. 67 (1788) [MB#202545]
I get it and then some. Thank you for for spelling it out for me – you are very perceptive. We both know I should have left this thread a while ago. :-)
Funny you mentioned IF/Mycobank and amanitaceae.org. I recently came across a false case of synonymy involving A. chlorinosma and A. cinereoconia on IF/SF. Surely, there is more where that came from.
I was just trying to clarify that this info comes from someone who has made a monographic treatment on European Agrocybe and without specific new details we should go with what is documented in FAN6. While mycobank and index fungorum are very useful sites, they copied their info from older texts and do not always update them promptly.
To put this in perspective, this would be like if index fungorum and / or mycobank had info contradicting what is recorded at amanitaceae.org. Without good accompanying details I would take it with a grain of salt.
The focus of that has been in the Boletaceae, with no end in sight. Agarics will have to take a number.
Somebody has worked on this infernal genus. Didn’t somebody cyclocrap out a new genus recently? Ffs.
Nothing can be trusted even in our IT-rich, evolved world. It’s all clogged up with junk info of very dubious origin. The truth is buried under the growing pile. :-)
I didn’t mean to present IF/SF as the final authority on naming fungi. We know it’s not, and it would be naive to assume that it is. It was just a single example, n=1, and I realize my post is ambiguous in its presentation — hence your comment. Now Mycobank says the same, but then they both can be wrong for the same or different reason(s)… There will always be at least some doubt in fungal nomenclature, no perfect answers, because it never was an exact science. We all have to stop worrying and just live with it.
Agrocybe dura sensu NCL (1960), auct. mult., (also see Species Fungorum: Agrocybe molesta); Strophariaceae
Agrocybe dura (Bolton) Singer 1936, (also see Species Fungorum: Agrocybe dura); Strophariaceae
Agrocybe dura var. dura (Bolton) Singer 1936, (also see Species Fungorum: Agrocybe dura); Strophariaceae
Agrocybe dura var. xanthophylla (Bres.) P.D. Orton 1960, (also see Species Fungorum: Agrocybe molesta); Strophariaceae
Familiar with the current taxonomic preference of dura vs. molesta? I remember having a community disscusion a few years ago, but I don’t recall the details.
The only evidence I’ve seen in support of one vs the other is this, from fan6:
" In contrast to Singer (in Sydowia 30: 197. [‘1977’] 1978) and in
accordance with Watling (in Br. Fung. Fl. 3: 18. 1982) Agrocybe
molesta and A. dura are here considered synonymous. The correct name
is Agrocybe dura. Bolton’s plate of A. dura seems to represent what is
nowadays in Europe known under that name, though one specimen on
this plate is slightly aberrant.”