Author: sensu lato
Deprecated Synonyms: Coprinoid
Prior to phylogenetic research based upon DNA comparisons, most of the species that autodigested were classified as Coprinaceae, which contained all of the inky cap mushrooms. However, the type species of Coprinus, Coprinus comatus, and a few other species were found to be more closely related to Agaricaceae. The former genus Coprinus was split between two families, and the name “Coprinaceae” became a synonym of Agaricaceae in its 21st century phylogenetic redefinition.
doesn’t seem much different, just an extension of using the name Coprinaceae sensu lato. It could work, it does with Ulje’s keys, but Psathyrellaceae is in for some changes and that seems a like a step backwards instead.
Does anyone else have any opinions on this? Or is it just me and myxomop that do? :)
Certain recognizable groups have been moved into Coprinellus, perhaps Coprinellus is not the best name for them, but at the time its the best name available… These groups would be the species under subsection Setulosi, subsection Domestici, and subsection Micacei under Uljé’s treatment here. http://www.grzyby.pl/...
If we went with Coprinaceae, I think we might also want to start calling them all Coprinus again. As far as identification goes, that treatment works quite well…
I think about it, the more I think placing importance on deliquescing far beyond species level identification is wrong. Coprinaceae is a messy name, sensu lato or not, I would opt for the name representing the natural relationships as we understand it.
Also, there are deliquescent (melty) Conocybe too, see C. deliquescens.
True, “not all inky caps deliquesce,” but all deliquescent fungi are “inky caps” — as in belonging to either Coprinus, Coprinellus, Coprinopsis or Parasola — are they not? We discussed one particularly melty Bolbitius once, but I don’t think that qualifies as “inaequihymeniiferous development.” It is these fungi, regardless of their taxonomic placement (Agaricaceae for Coprinus s.s., Psathyrellaceae for the rest), which it is hoped that this name (or some other better fitting one) will parenthesize into an easily locatable bunch where they can be divied into one genus or another, either by passing by the eyes of one or more seasoned Coprinologists or by the OP obtaining data on whatever missing diagnostic features are needed to make a genus or species determination.
I think what I’m trying to stress is that this very kind of rough sorting is already taking place whenenver something coprinoid in gestalt but lacking microscopy gets assigned to any of the (partially to primarily) deliquescent genera; genera whose key diagnostic features are largely microscopic. The result is lots and lots of observations arbitrarily listed under Coprinellus, among others, which, if more information were available (ie: sequencing, micrographs, more detailed photography), might turn out to belong to another genus entirely. The proposed use of a name like Coprinaceae sensu lato — which is just one idea — exists as a measure to equip name proposers with a more appropriate tool for this inherent urge for rough sorting than specific genus names, particularly when the genera in question are as convoluted as Larsson and Örstadius demonstrate in that paper.
Recognizing that the shared expression of a macromorphological , developmental or nutritional trait does not necessarily equate to relatedness between organisms does not have to prohibit us from adopting language to better sort the un-IDed observations that collect on the site, so long as that language is clear in its intention. I can only hope that sensu lato is interpreted correctly by enough users/passers by that they don’t go on thinking that these names without that suffix are taxonomically bulletproof, much less valid.
I guess I think of MO as an herbarium responsible for accessioning whatever walks in the front door, no matter the condition, no matter the caliber or quantity of data collection. Given those conditions, some kind of organizational schema broader than that of specific familial or binomial placement has to exist.
I understand your reasoning now and I somewhat agree, but also I think Coprinaceae is a really troublesome name which was abandoned for a good reason. First off, not all inky caps deliquesce, traditionally there are species in Coprinellus and Parasola that don’t, but also now Coprinopsis if you consider C. marcescibilis one rather then a Psathyrella which I think you should if you also use the name Parasola conopilus. There are also problems between Psathyrella and Coprinellus which need to be resolved, my solution has been to use existing names till someone can clear that up…
Also lets not forget that Coprinus has been considered Coprinaceae despite not being closely related to the other inky caps, but most of those we should be able to identify to genus at least I think. Panaeolus has also been included under this name under some treatments (Gerhardt), what family are they considered to belong to now? Lot of sources say Bolbitiaceae, but I would of thought Psathyrellaceae…
Here is a paper on this which you should read. :)
The soundness of Psathyrellaceae as a well defined family is not in dispute. Coprinaceae s.s. is old, outdated, inaccurate, and deserves to be left behind, phylogenetically speaking. However, there are still fungi which deliquesce and those that don’t. Coprinology hasn’t gone anywhere simply on account of another round of taxonomic musical chairs. I propose to let Coprinaceae sensu lato live on as a banner for these fungi — fungi which will never be referred to as “psathyrellaceoid” — for the following reasons:
1. Rendering deliquiescent fungi readily locatable on the site.
3. Reserving the use of Psathyrellaceae for the more perplexing psathyrelloid fungi, rather than lumping them together with obvious coprinoids.
4. Reserving the use of Coprinellus/Coprinopsis/Parasola for those observations where criteria for placement in one or the other is obviously met, rather than treating one or the other as defacto receptacles for coprinoids. This is especially pertinant for Coprinellus, which some seem to be in the habit of chosing when the coprinoid in question is small, falsely associating -ellus as a diminutive suffix indicating size.
Created: 2007-06-18 23:54:51 PDT (-0700) by Nathan Wilson (nathan)
Last modified: 2015-12-19 04:52:41 PST (-0800) by Danny Newman (myxomop)
Viewed: 322 times, last viewed: 2019-04-06 05:48:39 PDT (-0700)