First person to use this name on MO: Erlon
Name: Desarmillaria tabescens
Author: (Scop.) R.A. Koch & Aime
Citation: in Koch, Wilson, Séné, Henkel & Aime, BMC Evol. Biol. 17(no. 33): 12 (2017)
Synonym(s):Armillaria tabescens (Scop.) Emel
Deprecated Synonyms: Armillariella tabescens, Pholiota gymnopodia (Bull.) A.F.M. Reijnders, Omphalia gymnopodia, Agaricus socialis, Agaricus gymnopodius, Flammula gymnopodia, Agaricus tabescens, Clitocybe gymnopodia, Clitocybe tabescens, Collybia tabescens, Clitocybe socialis, Armillaria socialis (DC.) Fayod, Armillaria mellea var. tabescens
One of the things mushroom identifiers are privy to is seeing some or all of the validly published synonyms of a species since latin & scientific names were formally implemented. There should be more requirements placed upon all mycologists in a way that practically satisfies the need to prevent additional synonyms from being published. At the same time, there is a need for community consensus for splitters and summers (as they are known) to find their true center and decide the differences required to more properly satisfy a consensual understanding of the “distance” between two species and two genera.
༒ The Distance Between Two Or More Species & The Variation Within Each Species ༒
In an important conversation between Dr. Cornelis Bas and Dr. Rod Tulloss, Bas casually proposed a minimum three (3) differences in order to describe a new species that bared great resemblance to one or more species. Please note that these three (3) differences were proposed when mating studies had either not yet been performed or were inconclusive. While this “rule of three differences” is considered outdated and overly conservative by some mycologists, it is the basis for the discussion below.
In biology we are working within species concepts. One biologist (or mycologist) may use more demanding criteria for species delimitation while another biologist may use less demanding criteria. The aim in taxonomy must be to present the most accurate and complete understanding of a particular species using any and all methods and concepts available to us.
Taxonomy and formal descriptions of species can now include the following modern day, minimum criteria:
1. Complete descriptions of all macroscopic characters (See list of macroscopic characters used in taxonomy). This includes the variation of phenotypes within each species, with photographic evidence showing this variation. In addition, a minimum of 3 photographed distinguishing features of the taxon are provided and described for the common collector (or identifier).
2. Complete descriptions of all microscopic characters (See list of microscopic characters with taxonomic value).
3. Mating study analysis (See list of mating study characters).
4. Chemosystematics (See list of Chemical Characters With Taxonomic Value).
5. DNA sequences are obtained and at a minimum include the current official barcode (the complete ITS barcode region) and when possible, full genomic DNA sequences. Phylogenetic trees are published.
6. Comparison of all macroscopic, microscopic, chemical, DNA, and mating studies within the genus. In a taxonomically helpful approach, Sections of species are intuitively established for those genera which have a fitting number of species.
Additions Proposed: *
7. Publicly accessible (and free) digital and physical color photos of all recorded taxonomic attributes are published – sized in one of several standard formats (i.e. 4 × 6, etc. – with macroscopic photography set a minimum size of 4 × 6 inches, in color, and of taxonomic use). (Sydowia, FungalDiversity, etc). Photos also entered and identified on at least two global taxonomy sites (i.e. Mushroom Observer, Cyberliber). ►
8. Entry into at least two mycological name databases with investigation and resolution of possible synonyms (i.e. Index Fungorum, MycoBank). Also, when two or more valid (legitimate) species names exist to describe the identical taxon, the older name is applied unless otherwise specified by the International Code Of Nomenclature. If the ICN currently allows for two legitimate names for one taxon, a new proposition to resolve to “one fungus = one name” is established. In addition, Mushroom Observer works alongside both Mycobank and Index Fungorum using a script that allows MO to automatically add missing names while updating names that require “deprecation” or “current name” change. All three organizations (MO, MB, IF) each publish their own rules for treating synonyms in way that best serves taxonomy both for mycologists and the general public. Also, highly visible documentation needs to be provided on MB and IF showing who can deprecate, synonymize, split, or otherwise change a name on MB and IF – and who has changed a name. ►
9. Any DNA sequences, including full genome sequences, are entered into at least two mycologically involved systematics databases (NCBI Blast, Uniprot Blast, etc.).►
10. Herbarium or Fungarium deposits are properly recorded physically and made digitally accessible to the public (Herbario Instituto de Ecología, Harry D. Thiers Herbarium, etc.).►
The above ten step approach should provide a basis to consolidate or separate species.
- – https://web.archive.org/...
11. Six simple guidelines for introducing new genera of fungi: http://edepot.wur.nl/366036
12. ICN site: https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php
13. Proposal: Newly published taxons could be more intuitively named to help in the procedure of identification. For example, a species of Deconica that has three unique attributes (staining red, growing from branches of Koa, and unusually small specimens are common) could be more properly named Deconica koaredminima or something similar. From start to finish in the describing of a fungal species, intuitiveness and swift identification need to be important themes.
14. Proposal: All mycology-related journals with validly published fungal taxons since the scientific species naming system began are yielded freely to teams representing MO, MB, Cyberliber, and IF. These organizations then take on the responsibility of identifying synonyms and dealing with any difficulties based on their respective codes they establish. These organizations also establish a working relationship together to help in these matters adequately and to satisfactory conclusion.
15. The genus type collection of every genus and the species type collection of every species needs to be analyzed in a way that establishes the genus or species with taxonomic limitations. These two items should also be included in MO observations in the upper right area.
16. MO contributors ought to review every genus name and add all missing Sections from each genus. In the Section description page a list of relevant species names are added showing what species belong to which section.
17. MO observations provide a link in the upper right section for Similiars, which once clicked show species that have previously been proposed for the same taxon, but were not that actual species. Second, a Look Alikes link is provided showing all other names that could be mistakenly applied.
18. MO sincerely and eloquently should consider digital invitations emailed to published mycologists asking for their taxonomic assistance on MO. This invitation could also be sent with rapid instructions on how to register, how to use the site, and the items we would like their involvement in.
19. MO could consider a policy for treating conflicts listed on MB and IF when their “current names” are different.
20. When MO adds a legitimate, validly published name AND a previously added provisional name is present, the site asks the addee if they want to combine the official name with the provisional name.
21. A new link under Indexes on MO should be added showing How A Fungus Gets Its Current and Legitimate Name showing the processes and the “chain of command” in those processes. This process starts with the collector and ends with full taxon approval. It includes the author(’s) editors, the publisher(s), the International Code of Nomenclature, and any other party involved in approval relevant to legitimacy, validity, and “effective publication.” Also included: How a name is properly updated on Mycobank, Index Fungorum, and MO. This is important.
22. MO users need to be given guidance on how to perform a critical assessment for determining the best name for a taxon, which may not always be the latest published name. Professional (paid) mycologists wishing to publish a taxon must conduct due dilligence in preventing synonyms in the future while combining synonyms using the system of the ICN. MO should have literal details for mycologists to conduct due dilligence.
23. One of the issues causing synonyms is due to our planet using different languages. When a paper is in a foreign tongue, that paper should be made available in English for this site. This will require amateur and professional mycologists chipping in their translation skills and we need not be shy about admitting this and asking communities/persons for assistance with it.
All legitimately published names are equally legitimate in a formal sense. Armillaria tabescens, Desarmillaria tabescens, Agaricus tabescens, Collybia tabescens… The taxonomy you or your community upholds determines which name you want to use. As long as lumping vs. splitting is subjective (it always has been and probably will be for a very long time), it’s too much to ask for everyone to agree on names like that.
This name should be publicly debated and either illegitimized or re-legitimized. The mycologists of the last 100 years are swimming in synonymy without acknowledging it.
Created: 2017-03-14 21:45:52 WIB (+0700) by Erlon (Herbert Baker)
Last modified: 2018-11-15 19:08:54 WIB (+0700) by Erlon (Herbert Baker)
Viewed: 836 times, last viewed: 2019-02-13 19:37:07 WIB (+0700)