Name: Singerocybe phaeophthalma (Pers.) Harmaja
Most Confident Observations:
Copyright © 2019 Eva Zupan (Eva Zupan)
Copyright © 2020 Richard Daniel (RichardDaniel)
Copyright © 2019 Richard Daniel (RichardDaniel)
Copyright © 2010 Irene Andersson (irenea)
Version: 2
Previous Version 


First person to use this name on MO: Eva Skific
Editors: Jacob Kalichman

Nomenclature:

Rank: Species

Status: Accepted

Name: Singerocybe phaeophthalma

ICN Identifier: missing

Index Fungorum search

MycoBank search

Author: (Pers.) Harmaja

Citation: Karstenia 27(2): 72 (1988) 1987

Deprecated Synonyms: Clitocybe phaeophthalma (Pers.) Kuyper

Misspellings: Clitocybe phaeopthalmia

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

Comments

Add Comment
Yes, they are still synonyms
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2017-12-14 22:17:14 CST (-0500)

“Deprecated synonym” means the same thing as “Non-preferred synonym”.

Clitocybe phaeophthalma is a legitimate name; it is synonymous with Singerocybe phaeophthalma; but it’s a (slightly) inferior name.

I still cannot get it!
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2017-12-14 21:47:29 CST (-0500)

Are deprecated synonyms still synonyms even after they have been deprecated?
Why do you have to deprecate Clitocybe phaeophthalma (Pers.) Kuyper when it is a “good” synonym. I don’t see anything wrong with it and I don’t see any reason for its deprecation! Or, is it something here what I should know and don’t know?

Number of users interested in this name: 0