|I’d Call It That||3.0||5.40||1|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
It was still showing as H. olivaceoalbus on the heading and elsewhere. Putting in a vote for “Fungi sp.” of “I’d call it that” and then removing that naming fixed it. Now it shows as H. persoonii everywhere.
Synonym deletions need to make all the pages with any of the synonyms get regenerated automatically or this will someday happen again. Actually, I think the pages are dynamically generated on request anyway, so it’s some intermediate form or cached data that needs fixing or clearing when this occurs.
Until then, a workaround is to vote to force the system to rename an affected observation and then undo the vote changes to rename it back.
I agree that there has been, and still is, a lot of confusion around olivaceoalbus. Some mycologists have spent their whole lives trying to figure out which species all the old descriptions referred to, and we still don’t know how many species olivaceoalbus consists of. It can be rather large and rather dry, and at the other end, very small and pale, but it’s hard to draw any lines between them. I’ll post some examples..
…but this lovely, slimy capped critter doesn’t even come close to what I think olivaceoalbus looks like!
shockingly enough, even professional (and famous) mycologists can make errors, which can get passed down as gospel in the literature.
Yes, H. persoonii is a synonym to H. olivaceoalbus sensu Lange, but only according to his mistaken interpretation, which he made before H. persoonii was described, as late as 1979.
Fries’ description of olivaceoalbus is quite clear about the habitat “in pinetis montanis”, coniferous forests, and did hardly include this rare species that grows with hardwoods.
I leave it to someone who knows more about this genus, and current nomenclature within it, to decide whether or not it is an error and to correct it if it is.
This is Hygrophorus persoonii, NOT olivaceoalbus. Where did that name come from??