Name: Entoloma medianox C.F. Schwarz
Most Confident Observations:
Copyright © 2016 Christian (Christian Schwarz)
Copyright © 2009 Richard Sullivan (enchplant)
Copyright © 2016 Christin (ceanderz)
Version: 5
Previous Version 

First person to use this name on MO: Oluna & Adolf Ceska
Editors: Erlon Bailey, Christian


Rank: Species

Status: Accepted

Name: Entoloma medianox

ICN Identifier: missing

Index Fungorum search

MycoBank search

Author: C.F. Schwarz


Deprecated Synonyms: Entoloma bloxamii sensu CA, Entoloma medianocte C.F. Schwarz


Domain: Eukarya

Kingdom: Fungi

Phylum: Basidiomycota

Class: Agaricomycetes

Order: Agaricales

Family: Entolomataceae

Genus: Entoloma

Show Subtaxa

Brief Description: [See More | Edit]

See full text here: 
Index Fungorum link here:

Also see discussion on the naming of this taxon and the practice of non-professional taxonomy in general at:

Descriptions: [Create]


Add Comment
medianox vs. medianocte
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (
2015-03-05 11:46:58 CST (-0500)

medianox is a noun – my Yacht “Midnight”
medianocte is an adjective – my midnight bus
Inocybe hystrix – Inocybe “porcupine”
Inicybe hsytricina (if it were) porcupine-like (spiny) Inocybe

No orthographic variants !!!!
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (
2015-03-04 15:46:14 CST (-0500)

Specific epitheta "medianox"and "mediacnocte"are two different grammatical forms, and in no case they are orthographic variants of the same. “Medianox” is a noun, whereas the "medianocte"is an adjective. I hope you can see the difference. It’s not uncommon that two or more specific epitheta would be formed of the same root: e.g., Cortinarius vernalis Peck and Cortinarius vernus H. Lindstr. & Melot. Inocybe hystrix (Fr.) P. Karst. has to be Inocybe hystrix (porcupine – a noun in appostion), and not Inocybe hystricina (porcupine-like – an adjective).
In this case, Entoloma medianox C.F. Schwarz was published 2 or 3 days before
Entoloma medianocte C.F. Schwarz, and for that reason has a priority over the latter. The name Entoloma medianocte C.F. Schwarz has to be considered superfluous according to the Article 52.1 of the Code: A name … is to be rejected if it was nomenclaturally superfluous when published, i.e. if the taxon to which it was applied, as circumscribed by its author, definitely included the type (as qualified in Art. 52.2) of a name that ought to have been adopted, or of which the epithet ought to have been adopted, under the rules (but see Art. 52.3 and Art. 59.1).

Number of users interested in this name: 0