Name: Polyporus squamosus
Author: (Huds.) Fr.
Citation: Syst. mycol. (Lundae) 1: 343 (1821)
Preferred Synonyms: Cerioporus squamosus (Huds.) Quél.
Deprecated Synonyms: Boletus squamosus Huds., Polyporellus squamosus (Huds.) P. Karst., Melanopus squamosus (Huds.) Pat., Favolus squamosus (Huds.) Ames, Bresadolia squamosa (Huds.) Teixeira, Boletus juglandis Schaeff., Polyporus juglandis (Schaeff.) Pers., Boletus cellulosus Lightf., Boletus polymorphus Bull., Polyporus squamosus var. polymorphus (Bull.) P.W. Graff, Polyporus ulmi Paulet, Agarico-pulpa ulmi Paulet, Boletus maximus Schumach., Polyporus michelii Fr., Boletus michelii (Fr.) Pollini, Cerioporus michelii (Fr.) Quél., Polyporus squamosus f. michelii (Fr.) Bondartsev, Polyporus flabelliformis Pers., Polyporus dissectus Letell., Polyporus rostkowii Fr., Polyporellus rostkovii (Fr.) P. Karst., Cerioporus rostkowii (Fr.) Quél., Polyporellus squamosus f. rostkovii (Fr.) Pilát, Polyporellus squamosus f. rostkowii (Fr.) Pilát, Polyporus squamosus f. rostkowii (Fr.) Bondartsev, Polyporus squamosus f. rostkovii (Fr.) Bondartsev, Polyporus infundibuliformis Rostk., Polyporus pallidus Schulzer, Polyporus alpinus Saut., Trametes retirugis Bres., Polyporus retirugis (Bres.) Ryvarden, Polyporus caudicinus Murrill, Polyporus squamatus Lloyd, Polyporellus squamatus (Lloyd) Pilát, Polyporus squamosus var. maculatus Velen., Polyporus westii Murrill
Misspellings: Cerioporus sqamous
They are listed here:
If we use the MO “preferred synonyms” the collections would be lost.
We could use that system however why bother being taxonomically correct? Why emphasis collecting all our data if we are going to meddle with it? You can call it by the old or new name if you want, however keeping the current name shows us where it is placed as we know it today. For someone who does not know or is new to mycology, this will confuse them and making describing genera , families and species quite confusing. Good example is boletus being part of the polypore family as was thought in the early years of mycology.
We are depositing our herbarium collections in the UBC and they have 7 collections of Polyporus squamosus and 0 of Cerioporus squamosus. Our two collections are not in yet, but they will be accessioned as Polyporus squamosus. MyCoPortal has only 11 collections of Cerioporus squamosus and 774 collections of Polyporus squamosus. Polyporus squamosus is wining!
Several vascular plant herbaria used to follow Dalla Torre catalogue and genera were filed according to their numbers in the “Dalla Torre”. That way, herbarium collections were immune to the genus name changes (“deprecation” and mixed “preferences”).
MyCoPortal has a remarkable Synonym Thesaurus that solves this problem for mycological collections. MO should make a deal with the MyCoPortal and adapt their Thesaurus.
You can continue to use the older name if you’d like however it’s best to keep things current and up to date as possible.
Is it deprecated as well?
The preferred name at this moment in time.
How can you say that Jim Ginns does not have Cerioporus squamosus? Have a look at our two MO postings! Yes, it always helps to acknowledge my help in an mycological work, especially in this case, when Jim Ginns was using quite a bit of my photos originally posted in MO. Adolf
Jim Ginns p. 185:
Polyporus squamosus Huds. Dryad’s saddle
Habitat/range: On living and dead hardwoods, especially Populus, causing a
white rot. Uncommon but widespread in the southern half of BC. Elsewhere
in western North America, known from AB, WA, ID, MT, CO, and AZ.
However, there is no mention of the genus Cerioporus in the Ginns paper you have linked, so I’m not sure how it applies here. It appears to be a broad overview only, based on outdated references. It doesn’t qualify as evidence, even if your name is in the acknowledgements.
For the nomeclature of our British Columbia collections and postings of polypores we follow Ginns, J. 2017. Polypores of British Columbia (Fungi: Basidiomycota).
Ministry of Forests, Lands, and NR Operations, Technical Report 104. ISBN
978-0-7726-7053-3 (Print version) & ISBN 978-0-7726-7054-0 (Digital version)
A disservice is done to MO and its members by not providing evidence to support the reintroduction of Polyporus squamosus. MO improves due to meaningful and helpful dialogue.
Why bring back Polyporus squamosus?
Created: 2010-05-12 16:01:55 CEST (+0200) by Erlon (Herbert Baker)
Last modified: 2018-09-25 18:54:00 CEST (+0200) by Chaelthomas (Chaelthomas)
Viewed: 1436 times, last viewed: 2018-11-13 20:34:34 CET (+0100)