I sent correspndence to MB a few days ago regarding synonyms in general.
Other people familar with specific taxon problems should also consider contacting them. It seems far better for taxonomy if all three sites are as in-the-loop as possible.
(1) Most of these are taxonomic issues, while MB/IF are primarily nomenclatural.
(2) MO has comment/discussion functionality, where everyone can see and discuss everyone else’s reasons for their opinion. MB/IF are black boxes.
(3) MO is less formal so it can support more subtleties: preferring provisional names, deprecating a dubious species in favor of a genus, referencing unpublished research, deprecating an almost-certainly-obsolete genus before its type species has been studied, etc.
But if MB/IF’s mistakes bother you that much, by all means email their admins!
….Invite the MB and IF admins into the MO community and see if we can improve things then?
don’t just prefer the most recently published name, they prefer the name that [whatever admins] have heard is preferred. It’s better than a simple algorithm but it’s still much worse than the community of MO.
MB and IF work differently than MO. IB and MF show the most recently published name, while MO shows the best name. They are very different things, and aren’t always in agreement.
In my opinion Leptonia is a good genus that is useful. Some people from Europe think all the Entolomataceae should be lumped into Entoloma, and they’ve published some papers to this effect. Their ideas have caught on in Europe but not so much in the USA.
What in your estimation is the right way to have this name in alignment with all three sites? Should MO intervene with MB and IF, or contact them?
I don’t agree with Index Fungorum and Mycobank that this name should be deprecated. They are just listing the most recent name, not the most correct one.
Leptonia is a useful genus