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.
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.
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.
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…
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”.
MO puts them both above Kingdom.
It doesn’t imply monophyly (in contrast with “clade”).