Name: Lentinellus ursinus (Fr.) Kühner var. ursinus
Most Confident Observations:
Copyright © 2011 Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
Copyright © 2011 Hamilton (ham)
Copyright © 2011 Martin Livezey (MLivezey)
Copyright © 2013 Gerhard Koller (Gerhard)
Version: 4
Previous Version 

First person to use this name on MO: Michael Wood
Editors: walt sturgeon


Rank: Variety

Status: Accepted

Name: Lentinellus ursinus var. ursinus

ICN Identifier: missing

Index Fungorum search

MycoBank search

Author: (Fr.) Kühner

Citation: Botaniste 17: 99 (1926)

Synonym(s):Lentinellus ursinus (Fr.) Kühner

Deprecated Synonyms: Lentinellis ursinus

Brief Description: [See More | Edit]

Cap: Up to 10 cm across; kidney-shaped to roughly semicircular; broadly convex, becoming flat or depressed; minutely hairy or velvety, at least over the inner 1/3; brown, cinnamon brown, or pale; the margin inrolled.

Gills: Close or nearly distant; the edges distinctively saw-toothed; whitish to pinkish.

Stem: Absent.

Flesh: Pale.

Taste: Strongly acrid or peppery; odor not distinctive or a little spicy.

Spore Print: Creamy white.

Microscopic Features: Spores 4-4.5 × 3-3.5 µ; elliptical; amyloid; very finely ornamented with warts and spines. Pleurocystidia rare; fusoid to sharply pointed. Gloeocystidia present; clavate.

Descriptions: [Create]


Add Comment
Preferred rather than deprecated
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (
2014-01-31 18:16:14 UTC (+0000)

The variety where the species type belongs was automatically created when the first of the other two varieties, Lentinellus ursinus var. castoreus (Fr.) Krieglst. & Lentinellus ursinus var. pusio (Romagn.) P.-A. Moreau, was described (“Demoulin Rule”). Even when these two varieties were later transferred into Lentinellus castoreus (Fr.) Kühner & Maire, I would prefer “Lentinellus ursinus (Fr.) Kühner var. ursinus_” to “_sensu lato_” and “_sensu stricto” after “Lentinellus ursinus (Fr.) Kühner”.

In my particular form of English (called Czechlish by one my friend), I feel that the verb “deprecate” and the adjective “deprecated” are too strong, and I would drop them from the MO vocabulary. Turn it around and replace them with the “preferred name” for those names that are not “deprecated”.

What about Index Fungorum record 461118?
By: Joseph D. Cohen (Joe Cohen)
2014-01-31 17:17:53 UTC (+0000)

Walt and Adolf:

I am new at this and trying to puzzle it all out.

I see that Index Fungorum Record 461118 says that the “Species Fungorum current name” for Lentinellus ursinus var. ursinus1 is Lentinellus ursinus. So it looks to me like Index Fungorum prefers the species name both for the form and the variety. Am I misreading things?

Maybe “deprecate” in MO simply means that the deprecated name (which might be legitimate) is not the preferred Name for future MO Observations. If the deprecated name is illiegitimate, then the legitimate name is certainly preferred. For a legitimate autonym under ICN 26.1, it may be better to gather all future Observations be gathered a single Name, so species Name is prefered over the intraspecific autonym. Have I misunderstood?

But in any event, I think that MO allows users to name an Observation with a “deprecated” name if that’s what the user prefers.

— Joe

1 The Index Fungorum record is for “Lentinellus ursinus var. ursinus (Fr.) Kühner, Botaniste 17: 99 (1926)”. As Adolf observes, that is not a properly-formed name under under ICN 26.1 because the author citation is misplaced. However, as Adolf also implies, it’s simply a misplacement of the author information, rather than a different name.

Illegitimate child should not be deprecated
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (
2014-01-31 17:04:44 UTC (+0000)

In the Code, the term “illegitimate” is strictly defined, see its Glossary:
illegitimate name. A validly published name that is not in accordance with specified rules (Art. 6.4), principally those on superfluity (Art. 52) and homonymy (Art. 53 and 54).
Mushroom Observer automatically “deprecate” valid synonyms as soon as any new “taxonomical inovation” comes to the fashion. Mind you, this is not the case of how to treat the typical variety name. MO is not the only database that had problems with citing/treating the typical variety: Index Fungorum mistakenly puts the species authority after the varietal autonym; Species Fungorum, on the other hand, is correct.

By: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
2014-01-31 16:40:51 UTC (+0000)

Index Fungorum deprecates the form not the variety

Is it possible to DEPRECATE the typical variety?
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (
2014-01-31 08:27:08 UTC (+0000)

According to the International Code of Nomenclature …", the name
Lentinellus ursinus (Fr.) Kühner var. ursinus is legitimate and must not be considered “deprecated”:

Article 26
26.1. The name of any infraspecific taxon that includes the type of the adopted, legitimate name of the species to which it is assigned is to repeat the specific epithet unaltered as its final epithet, not followed by an author citation (see Art. 46). Such names are autonyms (Art. 6.8; see also Art. 7.6).
Ex. 1. The variety that includes the type of the name Lobelia spicata Lam. is to be named Lobelia spicata Lam. var. spicata (see also Art. 24 Ex. 3).

This is known as the so-called Demoulin Rule.

Read the Code! I am sure that you won’t find the word “deprecate” there.

Number of users interested in this name: 0