Name: Panaeolus foenisecii (Pers.) J. Schröt.
Most Confident Observations:
Version: 9
Previous Version 


First person to use this name on MO: Nathan Wilson
Editors: Douglas Smith, Alan Rockefeller, walt sturgeon, Byrain, Image Sharer

Nomenclature:

Rank: Species

Status: Accepted

Name: Panaeolus foenisecii

Author: (Pers.) J. Schröt.

Citation: Botaniste 17: 187 (1926)

Deprecated Synonyms: Panaeolina foenisecii (Pers.) Maire, Psathyrella foenisecii (Pers.) A.H. Smith, Psathyrella foenisecii (Pers.) A.H. Sm., Prunulus foenisecii, Psilocybe foenisecii, Agaricus foenisecii, Psathyra foenisecii, Panaeolus foenisecii group

Misspellings: Panaleous foenisecii, Panaeolina floenisecii

Classification:

Domain: Eukarya

Kingdom: Fungi

Phylum: Basidiomycota

Class: Agaricomycetes

Order: Agaricales

Genus: Panaeolus

Show Subtaxa

Notes on Taxonomy: [Edit]

Index Fungorum lists Panaeolina foenisecii (Pers.) Maire as the current name. However, most texts seem to stick with Panaeolus. The ‘Google’ test at the moment (3/21/07) supports Panaeolus over Panaeolina 8 to 1.
First described by Fries as Agaricus foenisecii in 1821. After that it wanders through pretty much all of the dark spored genera. It ends up as Panaeolus by Kuhner in 1926, probably because of the mottled spore development on the lamellae. In 1932 Maire moves it to Paneolina because of the warted ornamentations of the spores. In 1972 Smith puts it into Psathyrella, and has Paneolina as a subsection of the genus Psathyrella. Or so says Smith in his 1972 monograph.

But none of this has the description of Pers., it is all from the type described by Fries. From Index Fungorum, there turns out to be a taxon synonym of Agaricus
foenisecii, from Pers. in 1800, which is before Fries in 1821.

But for now, in the hopes of simplification, Psathyrella, Panaeolus and Paneolina should be considered taxonomic synonyms for this species.

Descriptions: [Create]
There are no descriptions for this name yet.

Comments

Add Comment
Approved
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2019-03-24 18:59:54 MDT (-0600)

IF and MB aren’t good sources for seeing which genera are valid, they just go by what is published more recently. In this case, DNA sequences clearly show that this is a Panaeolus, but nothing has been published on it. Tom Bruns also mentioned to me that this is Panaeolus.

IF and MB as of March, 2019…
By: Image Sharer (image sharer)
2019-03-24 06:56:44 MDT (-0600)

IF:
Panaeolus foenisecii (Pers.) J. Schröt. 1926, (also see Species Fungorum: Panaeolina foenisecii); Agaricales
Panaeolus foenisecii var. foenisecii (Pers.) J. Schröt. 1926; Agaricales
Panaeolus foenisecii var. halophilus Bon 1970, (also see Species Fungorum: Panaeolina foenisecii); Agaricales
Panaeolus foenisecii var. intermedius E. Ludw. 2001, (also see Species Fungorum: Panaeolina foenisecii); Agaricales

MB:
http://www.mycobank.org/...

deprecated
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2009-06-20 13:42:18 MDT (-0600)

This species is in Panaeolina due to its rough spores which are dark walnut brown, not jet black as in Panaeolus.

Created: 2007-01-09 22:03:44 MST (-0700) by Nathan Wilson (nathan)
Last modified: 2019-03-24 18:59:53 MDT (-0600) by Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
Viewed: 1966 times, last viewed: 2019-06-26 09:22:20 MDT (-0600)
Show Log