Name: Sebacina schweinitzii
Author: (Peck) Oberw.
Citation: Kirschner, Oberwinkler & Hofmann, Nova Hedwigia 105(3-4): 337 (2017).
Deprecated Synonyms: Tremellodendron schweinitzii (Peck) G.F. Atk., Tremellodendron pallidum (Schwein.) Burt, Sebacina pallida (Schwein.) Oberw., Garnica & K. Riess, Tremellodendron schweinitzii G.F. Atk., Thelephora pallida Schwein., Thelephora schweinitzii Peck
Misspellings: Tremellodon schweinitzii
Sebacina schweinitzii (Peck) Oberw., comb. nov.
Index Fungorum IF552813
basionym: Thelephora schweinitzii Peck, Ann. Rep. N.Y. St. Mus. nat. Hist. 29: 67 (1878) 1876
≡ Sebacina pallida (Schwein.) Oberw., Garnica & K.Riess, in Oberwinkler, Riess, Bauer & Garnica,
Mycol. Progr. 13(3): 468 (2014), nom. illegit., based on illegitimate basionym Thelephora pallida
Schwein., Trans. Am. Phil. Soc., Ser. 2, 4 (2): 186 (1832), later homonym of Thelephora pallida
(Pers.) Pers. 1800
let the folks who are working on this sp. make the changes.
I was just stirring the pot a bit by suggesting Alan. But at the very least, it should be published by SOMEONE before we start just making up those names here.
Patrick: What, there is no perfect system? Yeah, IF can move at a glacial pace, and they don’t always get it right. But who the heck does?
How is that “blindly using” IF, though? In theory, we use that site because they have already done some of our work for us, keeping us up to date, so to speak, on the myriad name changes that are enough to drive men mad and make grown women weep.
Talk about attempting to hit a moving target! ;)
to those most acquainted with and invested in the issue, whose work we could been seen as “scooping,” however informally, by making playground recombinations here.
I posted a comment to the authors of the Sebacina paper on ResearchGate. It is their problem to clear up. They need to either make a rebuttal to the statement by Index Fungorum or make the new combination. It would be courteous for us to let them make that correction. We don’t know the full analysis of which name is best. We are assuming that Index Fungorum is correct. But I.F. has been wrong before. Prime example: it took more than a year for I.F. to clear up their objection to Sebacina sparassoidea even after direct contact with the author, Peter Roberts.
wouldn’t this comb. nov. be a perfect use for the IF quickie pub?
Alan claims he can do these in five minutes, so you go, guy! and then, we can use it here, legitimately.
The more we do our “cutting edge” pretend science here, the less respected and used we will be in the real world of mycology. I would like to see more of an honest melding between MO and real mycology. wouldn’t you?
I would suggest no nom provs w/out a species pub w/in a set amount of time.
2 years? 4 years? what seems reasonable?
Otherwise, it’s nom. prov. city without the benefit of a following publication. If you know it well enough to describe it and give it a name, make it official!
it’s kind of like finishing up what’s on your plate before taking a second and third helping.
Should we use the quote system on proposed but unpublished names instead? Just to let folks know it is actually a place holder for an unpublished species that might never actually get published?
What does “blindly using IF” mean, Patrick? IF only puts up published names. The professional myco community decides if those names get accepted, and not everyone agrees, or so I have been seeing.
Always good to have a new hot topic on MO! It was getting kind of dull what with all of those obsies with photos.
that clarifies things.
Is that when Oberw., Garnica & K. Riess 2014 moved this taxon into Sebacina, they gave it the wrong species epithet – making it Sebacina pallida when it should have been Sebacina schweinitzii because that name is older (1878 vs 1915). I expected that they would publish a better comb. nov. but they haven’t yet.
but once again, we’re back to the heavily beleaguered issue of user classes. I think most would agree that Rod should be allowed to make provisional combinations for Amanitaceae, if only for organizational purposes, whereas JohnDoe123 should not. Absent user classes, invented names should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In the case of this name, it has not been put forth by someone specializing in Sebacinaceae or related fungi, nor has it been accompanied by any rationalization or data supporting its use, so I’m inclined to give it a thumbs down. Then again, IF permits anyone to recombine for any reason at will, at which point it becomes “valid” here, as MO’s database is basically a derivative, subordinate one. Hooray!
This website is not the place to make new combinations. Particularly when someone is blindly using Index Fungorum.
or create new names on MO without publishing them first? anyone? only certain people? if the latter, what are the criteria for who can and can’t add nonexistent names to our database?