When: 2007-01-27

Collection location: Albion, Mendocino Co., California, USA [Click for map]

Who: Douglas Smith (douglas)

No specimen available

And continuing on the yet another genus name thread here… these are supposed to be listed under another genus name now I’ve heard. The genus is now Melanopus, instead of Polyporus. What is up, did everyone decide that Polyporus was just not to be used anymore?

Species Lists


Please login to propose your own names and vote on existing names.

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
1887 is new?
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2007-02-04 22:11:24 CST (-0600)

Looks like that’s when Melanopus was published according to Index Fungorum. Maybe recently found to be distinct from Polyporus would be more accurate. What’s your feeling about Index Fungorum? I’m obviously fond of it. It’s good about having actual references and get updated reasonably often. The downsides are the distinct European bias and the lack of any sort of discussion about why they make the choices they do.

I was just told Melanopus
By: Douglas Smith (douglas)
2007-02-04 00:18:47 CST (-0600)

In the talk from Terry Hinkel about wood rotters, he mentioned that this one is now in the new genus Melanopus. I don’t really know much more than that. I always want to get a better refference on things to be able to read up more later, but I didn’t get the time to get that.

The Index Fungorum likes Polyporus
By: Nathan Wilson (nathan)
2007-02-03 10:55:18 CST (-0600)

Interestingly it doesn’t even list Melanopus badius as a published combination. It does like Melanopus elegans, but synonymizes it with Polyporus elegans. It also synonymizes the genus Melanopus with Polyporus. The type for Polyporus is Polyporus tuberaster (Jacq.) Fr. which naively does seem close to P. badius and P. elegans. I couldn’t figure out what the type is for Melanopus.