Name: Amanita persicina
Author: (Dav. T. Jenkins) Tulloss & Geml
Citation: Tulloss et al. 2015. Nomenclatural changes in Amanita. II, Amanitaceae 1(2): 3.
Deprecated Synonyms: Amanita muscaria var. persicina Dav.T. Jenkins
“Deprecated synonyms” is a double negative. Deprecated synonyms ARE synonyms, whereas “Preferred Synonyms” ARE NOT synonyms at al! Adolf
by saying that it is “deprecated,” that only means that persicina is now the preferred name, and it has been formally bumped up into its very own species rather than a mere muscaria “variety.”
But surely you already knew that, Adolf?
No offense meant, I’m sure, against the good name and pretty face of the amanita known as persicina, one way or another. Perhaps we shouldn’t think of “deprecating” in its older definition of “belittle, express earnest disapproval, or pray for deliverance from.” All that it means in this case it that persicina is the preferred form over muscaria var. persicina.
I think that we can all agree on that one, eh? And if not, majority opinion holds sway.
and now, we can use it at will!
The name has now been validly published.
Thanks for your response. I don’t think anyone is pretending that this name has been published. When I added it here, I made sure to add “combinatio provisora” in the taxonomic notes section.
If you feel adding quotes to the name itself is a better compromise, I’m willing to live with that. The quotes can always be removed later. I’d like to hear from Rod as to what he needs to publish these names; I know there are people here willing to lend a hand if need be. Rod’s work is vital, and if he doesn’t have some type of grant to perform his work, he certainly should. The rapid loss of habitat makes this issue pressing. How many species will be lost before we can even put a name on them?
I don’t feel like I’m at the stage to publish my own names yet, especially, taxa that Rod is already working on.. Maybe in a couple years.
But we can’t pretend that this is an “accepted” name … accepted by whom? Publishing a name on one’s website is not an official acceptance by the mycological community, which actually, believe it or not, extends beyond we mycophiles here on MO, although perhaps WE do have more fun!
There are definitely two schools on this issue.
I would dearly love to see Rod publish all of his many proposed names, some of which are of brand new species and do not already have published names, for broadly recognized taxa.
Yes, it is useful for us to use a name like “banningiana” because otherwise we would have nothing. But that is not true in the case of muscaria var. persicina.
If it’s a choice between a number and a name, I’ll take a name every time!
Also, at the very least, you should put "persicina " in quotes.
But you bring up a good point … if there is a taxa that YOU want to see get published, well then, step on up!~ There are labs that will even do your DNA analysis for you.
It should be quite clear after looking at the DNA that this entity deserves species ranking. You’re gonna be waiting a long to for Rod to publish all his taxa according to your specifications, Debbie. Why not use some of these names that Rod has worked hard to classify and has presented for us? It’s not like we can’t change it in the future if need be. I trust Rod’s judgment in regards to this name change. If you have a case on why it should not be raised, I’d love to hear it. It may not be perfect but it certainly gets us closer to the reality of the Correct placement of this taxon. Also, the rules for publishing have become more lax in recent times because of the advent of the internet. This should allow more people to publish without having to spend an arm and a leg. I hope that we can find some common ground here and move forward.
is more likely to reflect the “true” structure of taxa, which follows from the assumptions that (1) provisional names are likely to be published and accepted, and (2) science is likely to get more accurate over time…
Also I’m assuming the purpose of MO is more “what is this thing” than “what is this thing officially called” – wouldn’t it have been useful to use names like “Helvella ‘dryophila’” and “Helvella ‘vespertina’” before they were published?
no authority has accepted persicina as the preferred name. it needs to be published first.
why not just wait until or if persicina gets published? using it now is jumping the gun
solving this dilemma by putting the name in quotes or adding “comb prov” or something like that?
where did this name get formally published? It is not shown as such, even on Tulloss’ website, and certainly not on IF or Mycobank.
If it is a work in progress, then we need to be patient a bit longer. Names are NOT valid until publication, and even then, they can be challenged.
Created: 2014-03-11 03:07:26 PDT (-0700) by Erlon (Herbert Baker)
Last modified: 2018-01-01 06:58:57 PST (-0800) by Joseph D. Cohen (Joseph D. Cohen)
Viewed: 449 times, last viewed: 2018-08-11 14:23:37 PDT (-0700)