Name: Fomitopsis mounceae J.-E. Haight & Nakasone
Most Confident Observations:
Version: 34
Previous Version !


First person to use this name on MO: Herbert Baker
Editors: Jason Hollinger, Oluna & Adolf Ceska, Joseph D. Cohen, Chaelthomas

Nomenclature:

Rank: Species

Status: Accepted

Name: Fomitopsis mounceae

Author: J.-E. Haight & Nakasone

Citation: Mycologia 111(2): 344 (2019) DOI: 10.1080/00275514.2018.1564449

Classification:

Domain: Eukarya

Kingdom: Fungi

Phylum: Basidiomycota

Class: Agaricomycetes

Order: Polyporales

Family: Fomitopsidaceae

Genus: Fomitopsis

Lifeform:
Notes on Taxonomy: [Edit] Descriptions: [Create]

Comments

Add Comment
i
By: Chaelthomas (Chaelthomas)
2019-03-27 23:14:06 CDT (-0400)

readded then deprecated it so its on file

Ypu may be right,
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2017-08-14 02:55:15 CDT (-0400)

but I feel that it is not really correct to re-use a illegitimate specific epitheton in a closely related genus.
In our herbarium collections of Polyporales s.lat. and related MO observations we follow the taxonomy and nomenclature of Ginns, J. 2017. Polypores of British Columbia (Fungi: Basidiomycota) that appeared just a few months ago. For the long-term mycofloristic studies you need a certain stability of the names and introductions of the nomina provisoria does not really help. pdf version of Jim Ginns publication’is available free of charge from the BC Ministry of Forests … website:
https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/TR/TR104.pdf
I don’t know how applicable it would be to your area, but if you look at it, you will understand our names that we are using for our Polyporales observations.

Ignore The Code!
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2017-08-14 00:13:02 CDT (-0400)

This is not an ICN article, but only the Recommendation:

Recommendation 38C
38C.1. When naming a new taxon, authors should not adopt a name that has been previously but not validly published for a different taxon.

It’s not clear to me, if the “name” means a specific epitheton or not.
However, have a look at this:
pini-canadensis, Fomes pini-canadensis (Schwein.) Cooke 1885, (also see Species Fungorum: Fomes pini-canadensis); Polyporaceae

pini-canadensis, Polyporus pini-canadensis Schwein. 1832, (also see Species Fungorum: Fomes pini-canadensis); Polyporaceae

pini-canadensis, Scindalma pini-canadensis (Schwein.) Kuntze 1898, (also see Species Fungorum: Fomes pini-canadensis); Polyporaceae

Give me a break!
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2017-08-13 23:15:13 CDT (-0400)

I would really love to be as great expert on nomenclature and the Code as you are!
Adolf

Why this has to be a provisional name?
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2017-06-07 10:51:26 CDT (-0400)

New combination of the old Schweinitz’s name would be easy to publish for instance in the Index/Species Fungorum Publications. Even then, we would not use it, since we follow Jim Ginns’s “preferred synonyms” he recently published in his treatment of the British Columbia polypores. See:
https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/TR/TR104.pdf

How many provisional names have you, Erlon, created?
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2017-03-08 11:45:33 CST (-0500)

and why? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Deprecated
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2017-03-08 11:03:57 CST (-0500)

Don’t create new names and don’t push them down the throat to other MO users. MO is not and never will be the authority for “naming” of fungi.

Synonyms
By: Terri Clements/Donna Fulton (pinonbistro)
2015-03-05 12:10:24 CST (-0500)

Pinus canadensis is a synomym for Tsuga canadensis common name eastern hemlock.

Number of users interested in this name: 0

Created: 2015-03-02 17:51:32 CST (-0500) by Herbert Baker
Last modified: 2019-06-14 20:24:02 CDT (-0400) by Joseph D. Cohen (Joe Cohen)
Viewed: 2537 times, last viewed: 2020-03-30 21:15:28 CDT (-0400)
Show Log