Name: Hygrocybe flavescens group
Most Confident Observations:
Copyright © 2018 pdvmushroom
Version: 10
Previous Version


First person to use this name on MO: Jacob Kalichman
Editors: Alan Rockefeller, Erlon Bailey

Comments

Add Comment
Approved
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2018-11-16 05:53:40 +03 (+0300)

Not everything that looks like Hygrocybe flavescens is in Hygrocybe sect. Chlorophanae, so this name is useful for yellow Hygrocybes that resemble H. flavescens.

Adding phylogenetic information is great
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2017-12-09 21:17:27 +03 (+0300)

I put a lot of work into that on e.g. the Pleurotus sensu lato page.

Feel free to look through the Lodge paper and update this page with (sub)section affinity.

You’re repeating yourself
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2017-12-07 05:48:00 +03 (+0300)

I know that your viewpoint is that morphological group names are bad.

Understand that I agree with the preference for monophyly.

How do you feel about Agaricales sensu lato, which is solidly polyphyletic and a well-established name here?

If you like it: Why Agaricales sensu lato and not Hygrocybe flavescens group?

If you don’t like it: Our disagreement is more fundamental than “group” names and we should take it over to the Agaricales sensu lato page.

It looks like you’re right
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2017-12-07 04:01:18 +03 (+0300)

about “group” in mycology papers. I’m still very reluctant to restrict its use like that on MO, because non-monophyletic names are so useful/necessary. (Hygrocybe ceracea definitely is not in sect. Chlorophanae, but it looks pretty similar.) I don’t think “sensu lato” is a good alternative because (1) it’s bulky and ugly, and (2) the wide senses of names also should ideally be monophyletic.

“group” is a casual term for morphological ID.
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2017-12-07 02:58:12 +03 (+0300)
“sensu lato” is superfluous when “group” is already in the name.
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2017-12-07 00:35:18 +03 (+0300)

My point is that group names can have utility even when they’re known to be polyphyletic, so (sub)section names aren’t always going to cut it, like in this case.

Stirps are a taxonomic rank. It’s yet another ideally-monophyletic alternative to group. They serve a purpose too.

There’s no reason to keep H. conica group in addition to H. subsect. Hygrocybe…

I totally agree
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2017-12-06 19:56:10 +03 (+0300)

That clades and monophyletic sections, subsections, etc are way preferable to artificial groups.

But for the cases where the limit of our ID ability might be polyphyletic… We have “group”.

That doesn’t mean anything
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2017-12-06 19:25:51 +03 (+0300)

MO puts them both above Kingdom.

“group” isn’t a taxonomic rank
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2017-12-06 18:10:25 +03 (+0300)

It doesn’t imply monophyly (in contrast with “clade”).

Number of users interested in this name: 0