Name: Panaeolus cinctulus (Bolton) Britzelm.
Most Confident Observations:
Version: 7
Previous Version 

First person to use this name on MO: Erlon Bailey
Editors: Alan Rockefeller, Byrain


Rank: Species

Status: Accepted

Name: Panaeolus cinctulus

Author: (Bolton) Britzelm.

Citation: Saccardo, P.A. Sylloge Fungorum 5, 1887

Synonym(s):Panaeolus subbalteatus (Berk. & Broome) Sacc.

Deprecated Synonyms: Panaeolus cinctulus (Bolton) Sacc., Agaricus cinctulus Bolton, Agaricus fimicola var. cinctulus (Bolton) Cooke, Coprinus cinctulus (Bolton) Gray, Panaeolus dunensis Bon & Courtec., Panaeolus fimicola var. cinctulus (Bolton) Rea


Domain: Eukarya

Kingdom: Fungi

Phylum: Basidiomycota

Class: Agaricomycetes

Order: Agaricales

Genus: Panaeolus

Show Subtaxa

Brief Description:

Cap: (1.5)2 — 5(5.5) cm, hemispherical to convex when young to broadly umbonate or plane in age, smooth, hygrophanous, dark dull red-brown when moist, whitish when dry. Often with a darker band along the margin (zonate) which disappears as the mushroom completely dries out. The flesh is red-brown to cream-colored and thin.

Gills: Close, adnate to adnexed, cream-colored when young, later mottled digny brown to soot-black. Gill edges white and slightly fringed.

Spore Print: Jet Black

Spores: 12 × 8 µm, smooth, ellipitic-citriform, thick-walled.

Stipe: (2)3.5 — 8(10) cm long, (2)3 — 7(9) mm thick, equal or tapered at the ends, reddish brown to whitish, pruinose, hollow, no veil remnants, longitudinally white-fibrillose and white-powdered, striate at the apex or twisting vertically down the entire length of the stipe, Stem base and mycelium occasionally staining blue.

Taste: Farinaceous when fresh, saliferous (salty) when dried.

Odor: Slightly farinaceous.

Microscopic features:

Descriptions: [Create]


Add Comment
Bad Book
By: Image Sharer (image sharer)
2019-04-20 08:45:04 CDT (-0500)

Bolton text:

Poor labelling and what appears to be a partially broken typewriter lead me here:

I would verify the pages scanned and ask if they could be re-scanned via the following:

A drawing from 1791
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2014-01-07 13:43:55 CST (-0600)

No, I have not seen the drawing. I would like to. I don’t know where to find it. How could a drawing from 1791 possibly positively identify a Panaeolus species? That is like saying that a blurry photo on shroomery is definitely a certain Panaeolus species. Assigning an epitype to a drawing from 1791 would be wild speculation, I think this name is a nomen dubium. We should use the oldest validly published name that accurately and unquestionably describes the species. I do not know which name that is but I am open to suggestions!

By: Byrain
2014-01-07 12:55:22 CST (-0600)

1860 is old, I would be surprised if DNA can be retrieved for it.

Also, you should say that about the drawing after we actually see it…Gerhardt seemed to think it was detailed enough.

Has anyone actually seen the drawing?
By: Byrain
2014-01-06 13:49:44 CST (-0600)

Gerhardt seemed to think it was good enough, the Agaricus subbalteatus description on the other hand is pretty bad & worthy of nomen dubbium if anything is…does the type material for it still exist?

From Gerhardt’s Panaeolus cinctulus description:

“FRIES erwähnt den Namen Agaricus cinctulus erst in
seiner „Epicrisis” (FRIES 1838), nicht aber in seinen sog.
Basiswerken (FRIES 1821, 1828). 1838 gibt er zu verstehen,
daß er die Art nicht kennt („Non vidi"). Erst durch
BERKELEY & BROOME (1861), beschrieben als Agaricus
subbalteatus, fand der Pilz Eingang in das mykologische
Bewußtsein. Dieser Name wurde bis heute von den meisten
europäischen Autoren benutzt. Einmal existierte gut
erhaltenes Typusmaterial, zum anderen machten die
Nomenklaturregeln vor Sydney (Internationaler Botani-
scher Kongress 1981) eine Berücksichtigung der vor FRIES
veröffentlichten Namen nicht nötig. Die Beschreibung und
Abbildung des Agaricus cinctulus (BOI.TON 1791) läßt sich
ziemlich eindeutig auf den oben beschriebenen Pilz
interpretieren, da BOI.TON eine typische Erscheinungs-form
behandelt hat. Ein Epitypus ist aber wegen der wichtigen
Mikromerkmale zur Charakterisierung der Art auch bei
untypischem Erscheinungsbild unerläßlich."

With google translate:

“FRIES mention the name Agaricus cinctulus only in
his " epicrisis " ( FRIES 1838) , but not in his so-called
Base stations ( FRIES 1821 , 1828) . In 1838 he gives us to understand ,
that he does not know ( "non vidi “). was only the way through
BERKELEY & BROOME (1861 ) , described as Agaricus
subbalteatus , found the fungus input into the mycological
Consciousness. This name was still home to the most
European authors used . Once there was good
preserved type material , on the other hand made ​​the
Nomenclature rules before Sydney (International Botani -
shear Congress , 1981) consideration of the prior FRIES
published name not necessary . The description and
Picture of Agaricus cinctulus ( BOI.TON 1791) can be
quite clearly to the fungus described above
interpret because BOI.TON a typical appearance form
treated . A epitype but because of the important
Micro features for the characterization of the type, at
atypical appearance is essential.”

He thought the drawing quite clearly shows his concept of P. cinctulus, so shouldn’t we consider this before change the preferred synonym?

By: Byrain
2013-12-14 03:08:22 CST (-0600)

No comment?

Herbert Baker
By: Byrain
2013-12-13 18:18:35 CST (-0600)

I’m not sure on the fine points of these naming conventions, but does the iconotype and epitype not matter?

“Iconotypus: Bolton, Hist fung. Halifax 4,Tf. 152. Epitypus (design. mihi): Deutschland, Berlin-Gatow, Mai 1983, Gerhardt 83052 (B),”

Number of users interested in this name: 4

Created: 2008-12-13 12:33:05 CST (-0600) by Erlon Bailey (Herbert Baker)
Last modified: 2019-04-20 08:45:04 CDT (-0500) by Byrain
Viewed: 20792 times, last viewed: 2020-05-27 20:15:25 CDT (-0500)
Show Log