Collection location: Kogelwald, Walbersdorf, Bezirk Mattersburg, Burgenland, Austria [Click for map]
also in WU
|User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||6.39||1||(Gerhard)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
it is a matter of narrow concept too.
often there are errors both in IF as well as MycoBank. But who am I to judge them? It is my view and what I have learned. I found this for the first time myself and ID’d it with the help of some specialists and we had the literature available for it. In this key and stuff they are clearly separated. But I have no idea if this can be applied worldwide and if it is valid or not. Peronosporales and the like are just things I catch when I got ahold of them occasionally. But it should be researched about what is truth and what is suggestion only.
I do not know these species. Maybe Index Fungorum is incorrect on this?
Wilsoniana bliti (Biv.) Thines, Mycotaxon 92: 456 (2005)
Albugo amaranthi (Schwein.) Kuntze, Revis. gen. pl. (Leipzig) 2: 658 (1891)
Albugo bliti (Biv.) Kuntze, Revis. gen. pl. (Leipzig) 2: 658 (1891)
Caeoma amaranthi Schwein., Trans. Am. phil. Soc., Ser. 2 4(2): 292 (1834)
Cystopus amaranthi (Schwein.) Berk., in Berkeley, Grevillea 3(no. 26): 58 (1874)
Cystopus bliti (Biv.) Lév., Annls Sci. Nat., Bot., sér. 3 8: 371 (1848)
Cystopus bliti (Biv.) Lév., Annls Sci. Nat., Bot., sér. 3 8: 371 (1848) f. bliti
Uredo bliti Biv., Stirp. Rar. Sic. 3: 11 (1816)
Wilsoniana amaranthi (Schwein.) Y.J. Choi, Thines & H.D. Shin, in Choi, Shin, Hong & Thines, Fungal Diversity 27(1): 31 (2007)
why deprecated? W. blitii is clearly a different species with a different host range. W. amaranthi grows (in Europe) on introduced species, blitii on indigenous. Besides spores are different. Another DNA stuff????