Name: Amanita muscaria subsp. americana
Author: (J.E. Lange) Singer nom. inval.
Citation: Lilloa 22: 386 (1951) [MB#346525]
Preferred Synonyms:Amanita muscaria var. guessowii Veselý nom. inval., Amanita chrysoblema G.F. Atk.
Deprecated Synonyms: Amanita muscaria var. alba Peck, Amanita muscaria f. guessowii (Veselý) Neville & Poumarat, Amanita muscaria var. americana J.E. Lange nom. inval., Amanita muscaria var. guessowii group, Amanita muscaria var. formosa sensu Dav. T. Jenkins, Amanita muscaria sensu Güssow & O’dell, Venenarius muscarius sensu Murrill
Misspellings: Amanita guessowii
Your action means at least three people read the dialog on this page. I’m glad that it was useful.
This is all I have time for today.
Well, we can’t read the minds of Lange and Singer. Also, we can no longer ask them what they were thinking. J. E. Lange passed away in 1941 according the list of authors of fungal names. Singer passed away more recently.
As to your last question, creation of names based on DNA has certainly already happened with regard to some microscopic life forms. I have no doubt it will some day happen with regard to a macrofungus. On the other hand, so long as there are persons needing physical descriptions, there will remain a market for them. At this time, it seems wise to serve all the “knowledge markets” that are there to be served.
When the days of Star Trek come, perhaps no one will want to hold information in their heads anymore…they will just tap into a central database perhaps by direct mind-computer link. Where this will lead has been imagined. There is a movie about the last man to learn to read. My impression was that it was intended to be interpreted as a tragedy.
Bye for now.
“Common usage” in itself has no impact on the validity or invalidity of a name.
Singer says nothing. Lange makes little more than a passing comment. I don’t think that anything should be assumed about the name at all…especially when we have valid names that can be used.
A name can become valid after an invalid publication. A provisional name, for example, can be validated. For example, Amanita longipes Bas was validated by Tulloss & Dav. T. Jenkins.
The date of validation is the date of pubication of the validated name or validated combination. This means that there is really no point to validation of a name if there is an existing synonym at the same rank. Such an act just fills up synonym lists and has no useful purpose for taxonomy. When there is no type, no protolog, no Latin diagnosis, and no definite meaning for a name, validation of the name is essentially the creation of a new name and requires all of the work that is entailed in describing a new species.
If there were already a valid name at varietal rank that could be raised to the rank of subspecies, it would be simpler to do that (and simpler is generally better…avoidance of the creation of more valid epithets than are needed).
With regard to the eastern, yellow variants of the North American muscarioid taxon (if, indeed, they can truly be placed together in a monophyletic clade…which isn’t currently obvious…in fact the current evidence suggests that this is not the case), it would appear that the hypothetical entity already has valid names at the ranks of form (listed above), variety (listed above), and (based on the paper of Geml et al.) subspecies.
It looks like there might be nothing to do but wait and see how the concepts of relevant taxons evolve with more research. I favor this latter approach.
The statement in the brown box that “Singer designated this name to the Northeastern race…etc.” is, strictly speaking, not correct. The name simply appears in a list at the point cited above in Lilloa vol. 22. Singer says nothing about a taxon to which the name could apply.
The first mention in Gilbert’s Amanitaceae occurs in the first fascicle printed in 1940 on page 76. Here, the name is claimed to be new, but is published without any description.
On page 105 spore drawings from two different specimens with very different spores are given with the name f. s. americana. The captions for these drawings appear on page 104.
Taken all together, the references in fascicle 1 lack a Latin diagnosis and do not amount to a valid publication of the name in question.
Mentions in the second fascicle (published in 1941) that are included as comments on other species occur on pages 226, 252, 255, 256, and 261. The name is not proposed as new at any of these points. To be specific, no Latin diagnosis is supplied for the name of interest anywhere in the second fascicle.
Hence, neither Lange nor Gilbert produced a valid name for an infraspecific taxon in A. muscaria using the epithet americana.
When Singer appeared to recombine the epithet “americana” (which he attributed to Lange) in 1951, he took no action to validate it. Hence the name at the head of this page is invalid.
Hence, nothing ought be deprecated “in its favor.”
On the other hand, one can only make an assumption as to what Lange meant by his informal use of the name…since he provided no distinguishing description. I would not recommend that the name in question be deprecated “in favor of” any other name. The MO deprecation process doesn’t allow for a big question mark in cases of significant uncertainty. MO was not developed in order to deal with subtleties of nomenclature. MO has a very distinctive and practical purpose—to provide an open vehicle for communication about mushroom sightings and the associated photographs.
MO doesn’t have a place to put ill-defined, invalid names. If such a subfunction or list were created, then the name presently under discussion…and its variants, should go into such a list. Otherwise, I suggest that there (presently) is no place for this name on MO.
There are at least two places for such names to be included—-MycoBank and Index Fungorum. I hope someday that we will have such a set of lists of “excluded names” on WAO. If we had such a list (with explanations) today, I could have just pointed at it.
Lange did not intend to create a name, but merely said that such a name might be created by someone. He was giving his informal opinion that the North American material he had seen on a visit seemed unlike the A. muscaria with which he was familiar in Europe.
An author’s failure to commit to a name as new when it is published invalidates it.
Singer’s adoption of an invalid name in what appears to be a recombination did not validate it. It just created another invalid name. Since there are available, valid names, the present name should simply be set aside.
Created: 2011-03-13 11:58:15 WIB (+0700) by Erlon (Herbert Baker)
Last modified: 2018-11-19 23:07:55 WIB (+0700) by Erlon (Herbert Baker)
Viewed: 554 times, last viewed: 2019-04-20 06:54:14 WIB (+0700)