Name: Polyporus squamosus (Huds.) Fr.
Most Confident Observations:
44744
Copyright © 2009 Dan Molter (shroomydan)
141073
Copyright © 2011 Dan Molter (shroomydan)
139232
Copyright © 2011 Brian Adamo (adamo588)
139636
Copyright © 2011 Nicki L. (Nicki)
Version: 9
Previous Version 


First person to use this name on MO: Erlon
Editors: walt sturgeon, Dmitriy Bochkov, Jacob Kalichman, Ryan Patrick, Chaelthomas

Nomenclature:
Classification:
Brief Description: Descriptions: [Create]

Comments

Add Comment
For our collections, we have to use the UBC “preferred” names.
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2018-06-12 17:00:56 CEST (+0200)

They are listed here:
https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Tr/TR108.PDF
If we use the MO “preferred synonyms” the collections would be lost.

Sure
By: Chaelthomas (Chaelthomas)
2018-06-12 10:37:45 CEST (+0200)

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.

Polyporus squamosus is winning
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2018-06-12 09:32:04 CEST (+0200)

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!

P.S.
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”).
P.P.S.
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.

Laughs
By: Chaelthomas (Chaelthomas)
2018-06-12 08:27:44 CEST (+0200)

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.

How about the common name?
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2018-06-12 08:21:35 CEST (+0200)

Is it deprecated as well?

Deprecated
By: Chaelthomas (Chaelthomas)
2018-06-12 08:04:15 CEST (+0200)

The preferred name at this moment in time.

Reply to Erlon
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2018-06-12 05:16:02 CEST (+0200)

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.

Approved
By: Ryan Patrick (donjonson420)
2018-06-12 03:27:30 CEST (+0200)
Thanks Adolf
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2017-09-19 04:49:12 CEST (+0200)

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.

Evidence to support the re-introduction of Polyporus squamosus
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2017-09-19 04:14:44 CEST (+0200)

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)
https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/TR/TR104.pdf

That should be self-evident
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2017-09-18 23:22:48 CEST (+0200)

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.

Fungi don’t care how they are called!
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2017-09-18 21:40:16 CEST (+0200)

Adolf

Deprecated
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2017-05-04 17:07:54 CEST (+0200)

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)
Show Log