Name: Sarcomyxa serotina
Author: (Pers.) P. Karst.
Citation: Meddn Soc. Fauna Flora fenn. 18: 62 (1891)
Deprecated Synonyms: Panellus serotinus (Pers.) Kühner, Agaricus serotinus, Acanthocystis serotinus (Pers.) Konrad & Maubl., Pleurotus serotinus, Pleurotus almeni, Agaricus almeni, Panus serotinus, Hohenbuehelia serotina (Pers.) Singer, Dendrosarcus almeni (Fr.) Kuntze, Dendrosarcus serotinus (Pers.) Kuntze, Pleurotus serotinus var. serotinus, Pleurotus serotinus f. serotinus, Pleurotus serotinus var. almeni, Pleurotus serotinus var. flaccidus
Misspellings: Sarcomyxa serotinus
A lignicolous, short stiped, cold weather gilled mushroom with a cap of many colors including green, orange, and bluish.
I don’t know how they arrive at it, but contacting Paul Kirk would probably help with info at least.
I’m guessing Panellus serotinus is automatically listed as preferred there because of the technicality “Nom. inval., Art. 35.2 (Melbourne)”. Sarcomyxa serotina might not have been validly published originally because the description just says the type species of the new genus Sarcomyxa is Pleurotus serotinus, and doesn’t explicitly write out the new combination “Sarcomyxa serotina”.
I’m not positive on how this all works but I’m guessing either something in the code grandfathers it in, or it’ll be republished some time. But it’s not a reason to not use the name.
In the protologue linked there, Flammulina is described right above it with the same problem, but IF doesn’t complain about article 35.2 there, so… Sarcomyxa should have what Flammulina’s having.
Thanks for the sources!
What is required to get Mycobank and Index Fungorum to change if there is such a consensus in the literature?
Lots of other papers put Sarcomyxa far away from Panellus, and almost always in or near the Hygrophoraceae.
The two articles I am aware of, Saito et al. (2014) and Jin et al. (2001) (http://www.cybertruffle.org.uk/...) show that Panellus s.l. is polyphyletic, but if Saito et al. (2014) is the evidence that Panellus serotinus should be called Sarcomyxa serotina, I am definitely not convinced. Both studies only looked at partial LSU sequences and Saito et al. (2014) only looked at 4 species, which does not capture the landscape of this clade. More work is needed, but given that Index Fungorum and Mycobank have Panellus serotinus as the currently accepted name, why change? I know those two sources can be faulty, but what other evidence is there to call Panellus serotinus Sarcomyxa serotina?
Panellus serotinus (Pers.) Kühner, C. r. hebd. Séanc. Acad. Sci., Paris 230: 1889 (1950)
Acanthocystis serotinus (Pers.) Konrad & Maubl., Icon. Select. Fung. 6: 364 (1937)
Agaricus serotinus Pers., in Hoffmann, Naturgetr. Abbild. Beschr. Schwämme (Prague) 3: 4 (1793)
Hohenbuehelia serotina (Pers.) Singer, Lilloa 22: 254 (1951) 1949
Panus serotinus (Pers.) Kühner, Bull. mens. Soc. linn. Lyon 49(Num. Spéc.): 895 (1980)
Pleurotus serotinus (Pers.) P. Kumm., Führ. Pilzk. (Zerbst): 108 (1871)
Pleurotus serotinus (Pers.) P. Kumm., Führ. Pilzk. (Zerbst): 108 (1871) f. serotinus
Pleurotus serotinus (Pers.) P. Kumm., Führ. Pilzk. (Zerbst): 108 (1871) var. serotinus
Sarcomyxa serotina (Pers.) P. Karst., Meddn Soc. Fauna Flora fenn. 18: 62 (1891)
Created: 2010-02-26 20:25:42 CET (+0100) by Erlon (Herbert Baker)
Last modified: 2018-11-26 10:03:10 CET (+0100) by walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
Viewed: 1601 times, last viewed: 2019-03-17 18:25:01 CET (+0100)