Rank: Group or Clade
Name: Hygrocybe flavescens group
Deprecated Synonyms: Godfrinia subsect. Chlorophaninae Herink
Not everything that looks like Hygrocybe flavescens is in Hygrocybe sect. Chlorophanae, so this name is useful for yellow Hygrocybes that resemble H. flavescens.
a small key could be created for Hygrocybe flavescens group to be included after each name.
+ = belongs; sensu stricto.
- = does not belong; sensu lato.
? = Position unknown
..is only slightly more palatable, however, it does highlight a certain type of laziness on the part of some mycologists. …Well established by a select few who try to superimpose their will over science and others.
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 don’t like it: Our disagreement is more fundamental than “group” names and we should take it over to the Agaricales sensu lato page.
is to gain a better understanding of the interrelatedness between species, the value of not using artificially constructed group names becomes readily apparent. Group names should be synonymized with their lowest known formal or informal phylogenetic ranking unless there is morphological and genetic evidence to establish the use of a further subdivision within those rankings.
The question regarding the H. flavescens group remains: As it is currently known, can Hygrocybe sect. Chlorophanae be subdivided phylogenetically into more than one group/clade? If not, then the H. flavescens group should be synonymized with sect. Chlorophanae.
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.
Morphological similar but unrelated species should be included in the comments section or taxonomic notes. Species whose ranking is unresolved should be included with a question mark at the lowest known rank on its corresponding sectional page. According to you, you’ve appropriated the type species from a sectional division at the rank of ‘group’ for morphological purposes only, I understand why you would want to do that; hopefully, you can see another side as well. It seems like we would make more progress if we could elucidate exactly what species do belong in the H. flavescens group (Hygrocybe sect. Chlorophanae).
Typical group names based on the type species of a section or subsection should not be polyphyletic and should represent closely related species unless the reason is clearly stated and understood by others who are also using the name. Your reason for separating Hygrocybe flavescens group from Hygrocybe sect. Chlorophanae is not clear; except to include species that may be questionable from a phylogenetic standpoint, without a reference.
If someone wanted to use the name Hygrocybe flavescens group in the typical fashion (to refer to a group of closely related species around H. flavescens), they would have to add “sensu stricto” to the end to differentiate it on MO from your name Hygrocybe flavescens group sensu Pulk, it’s not an ideal situation to have competing group names, but doable. In this regard, sensu lato or adding an attributing author to a group name is more appropriate.
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…
This is why I suggested sensu lato. Another way to get around this problem is to simply put a question mark (?) after the name if there is a question as to its exact placement i.g. awaiting molecular results, etc., within the section or subsection page.
I don’t think we should be too quick to toss out group names as informal ranks similar to “stirps” which serve a taxonomic purpose unless there is a good reason for doing so. For example, do we really want to separate H. conica group from Hygrocybe subsect. Hygrocybe, and what would be the basis for that? Those questions are not answered here regarding the H. flavescens group.
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”.
…or I wouldn’t have said it. But go ahead and separate all group names on MO from their sections and subsections if you think that works better. I simply will have to disagree with this approach; because it creates artificial phylogenies based on looks rather than information from an evolutionary standpoint.
MO puts them both above Kingdom.
they are ranked as synonyms on MO.
It doesn’t imply monophyly (in contrast with “clade”).
It is probably better to include sensu lato. with artificial group names. Taxonomy reflects phylogeny.
Created: 2017-06-27 13:01:31 MST (-0700) by Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
Last modified: 2018-11-15 19:53:40 MST (-0700) by Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
Viewed: 235 times, last viewed: 2018-12-05 18:19:45 MST (-0700)