Name: Leptosphaeria acuta (Fuckel) P. Karst.
Most Confident Observations:
Version: 1


First person to use this name on MO: Oluna & Adolf Ceska

Observations of:

this name (6)

this taxon, other names (0)

this taxon, any name (6)

other taxa, this taxon proposed (0)

any taxon, this name proposed (6)

Nomenclature:

Rank: Species

Status: Accepted

Name: Leptosphaeria acuta

Author: (Fuckel) P. Karst.

Citation:

Deprecated Synonyms: Leptosphaeria acuta (Moug. & Nestl.) P. Karst.

Classification:
Lifeform:
Descriptions: [Create]
There are no descriptions for this name yet.

Comments

Add Comment
Identification?
By: Rocky Houghtby
2016-06-13 03:07:32 PDT (-0700)

I’m not certain what you mean by that, Adolf. I’m not identifying anything. I became interested in this record because I was not familiar with the name, not because of any observations affiliated with it.

You should go to Index Fungorum after you know what it is
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2016-06-13 02:33:25 PDT (-0700)

You have to work on identification first and Index Fungorum would not help you too much. You have to work on the taxonomy first. My search on Google Scholar gave me this article that deal with Phoma:
http://www.repository.naturalis.nl/document/569779
That was after a really quick search. You have to start somewhere there.
.

Thanks to
By: Rocky Houghtby
2016-06-12 14:33:49 PDT (-0700)

Paul Kirk, and the other kindly contributors at IF, the majority of the older material is usually available at librifungorum. I literally cannot imagine what doing this was like prior to the Internet!

By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2016-06-12 14:07:41 PDT (-0700)

This is a taxonomical question, rather than the nomenclature. Find the pertinent literature! For that I usually go to the Google Scholar first:
https://scholar.google.ca/schhp?hl=en&tab=ws

Ah
By: Rocky Houghtby
2016-06-12 13:40:46 PDT (-0700)

It all adds up. Thanks for the additional context, Adolf and Oluna. I’m still interested in learning about the concept of Sphaeria, which was discarded. MO may not be a good platform for solving nomenclatural issues, but it is an excellent medium for communicating about said issues.

By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2016-06-12 13:34:15 PDT (-0700)

The International Code of Nomenclature (Melbourne Code) does not allow dual names for fungi with pleomorphic history. In this particular case, Leptosphaeria acuta was the name for the telemorph and Phoma acuta was the name for the anamorph.
Article 59 of the Code tells you how to deal with this problem:
http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=art59
I think that MO is not a good platform for solving complex nomenclatural problems and the MO name should follow Index/Species Fungorum.

Hm
By: Rocky Houghtby
2016-06-12 08:16:01 PDT (-0700)

IF ascribes the basionym to Fuckel, who published Pleospora acuta in 1870.
MB ascribes the basionym to Mougeot & Nestler, who published Sphaeria acuta in 1826; both resources acknowledge that Mougeot & Nestler’s publication was invalid, which doubtless relates to how IF cites the name. And on top of it all, there is a Sphaeria acuta published by Hoffman, in 1778 that IF lists as a synonym for Leptosphaeria acuta, but MB lists as a synonym for Phoma acuta!

There is a bit of an unsolved puzzle here, I think.

Created: 2016-06-12 07:10:36 PDT (-0700) by Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
Last modified: 2019-03-05 06:52:15 PST (-0800) by Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
Viewed: 85 times, last viewed: 2019-07-09 11:03:11 PDT (-0700)
Show Log