Author: sensu stricto Dentinger nom. prov.
Preferred Synonyms:Boletus L.
[T]o acknowledge the difference between the relatively minor divergence among the many taxa of porcini closely allied to the type species, B. edulis (clade ‘‘Boletus sensu stricto’’, Fig. 4), and the much greater divergence between the group these taxa form and the phylogenetically allied lineages of porcini sensu lato, we have chosen to recognize the several distinct, ancient divergences at the rank of genus. Hence, in addition to the aforementioned ‘‘Boletus sensu stricto’’, we used three new provisional generic names …: (1) ‘‘Inferiboletus’’ (inferi – meaning ‘‘southern’’) …; (2) ‘‘Obtextiporus’’ (meaning ‘‘woven over pores’’, in reference to the ‘‘stuffed pore’’-type partial veil) …; (3) ‘‘Alloboletus’’ (allo – meaning ‘‘other’’ in reference to the previous recognition that it was distinct from Boletus) corresponds to the divergent group that was traditionally treated with porcini but was recently recognized as morphologically distinct by Halling and Both (1998). The new names are provisional because we feel it would be premature to formally describe new genera based on the few specimens currently available.
Dentinger, B.T.M., Ammirati, J.F., Both, E.E, Desjardin, D.E., Halling, R.E., Henkel, T.W., Moreau, P.-A., Nagasawa, E., Soytong, K., Taylor, A.F., Watling, R., Moncalvo, J.M. & McLaughlin, D.J. 2010. Molecular phylogenetics of porcini mushrooms (Boletus section Boletus). – Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 57: 1276–1292
There should be only one Accepted name for Boletus, and since Linnaeus first described the genus, the only valid name in this case is Boletus L. Boletus is not a provisional name and “sensu stricta” is not the author. Dentinger et al. proposed 3 new provisional names for the clades that they felt are sufficiently divergent to warrant moving their members to separate genera. At the time two of the provisional genera were represent by only a single species. More recent work that includes more extensive taxon sampling has blurred the lines between these clades, so the provisional genera have not been formally described.
If someone is entering an observation on MO that fits into the genus “Boletus” sensu Dentinger et al., they should enter it as Boletus L. Alternatively, they could put it into the “Boletus edulis group”. If they don’t know which genus it belongs in, but know that it is a bolete (sensu lato), then I would suggest entering it as Boletaceae.
Added note – Having more than one Accepted Name entry for the same name, but with different authors creates interoperability issues with other sites that adhere more stringently to rules of nomenclature.
I edited this Name to include a citation to the article, link to the full text, and a quote (under Notes on Taxonomy) and tried to edit the Name field to be “Boletus sensu stricto no. prov.” but MO keeps trimming everything after “Boletus” and putting it into the Author field.
Created: 2014-06-25 01:17:28 EDT (-0400) by I. G. Safonov (IGSafonov)
Last modified: 2017-12-07 13:06:47 EST (-0500) by Danny Newman (myxomop)
Viewed: 425 times, last viewed: 2020-08-06 09:25:33 EDT (-0400)