When: 2017-09-23

Collection location: Lumina Resort, Dwight, Ontario, Canada [Click for map]

Who: walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)

No specimen available

Proposed Names

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
So there is an explanation…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2019-11-01 16:23:49 PDT (-0700)

for the duplicate proposal. Good to know, as it appears to be not unlikely this sort of thing may occur on MO again.

As for my first question, for many years this species is what I had called Fomitopsis pinicolola. So for me it seemed like a former name. But as it is still applied to a Eurasian taxon, “former” is not an appropriate characterization.

Thanks for the clarifications.

Joe
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2019-11-01 09:08:40 PDT (-0700)

There was nothing illegitimate about my nom. prov. But I’m willing to discuss this again if need be. I’m not sure how it is pertinent to this topic, however. You’ve again destroyed/merged the names after another member recreated them. You don’t have to erase my work from MO, I can do it for you.

Good point about life list
By: Joseph D. Cohen (Joe Cohen)
2019-11-01 09:00:46 PDT (-0700)

I’ll add that to the issue tracker.

Yes!
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2019-11-01 08:43:35 PDT (-0700)

Fomitopsis pinicola group works fine. The only downside about group names is they don’t currently show up in the life list, whereas sensu lato names will.

F. pinicola in NA
By: Joseph D. Cohen (Joe Cohen)
2019-11-01 08:41:06 PDT (-0700)

There’s a good MO name for Fomistopsis pinicola sl: Fomitopsis pinicola group.

P.S.: I think that the double appearance of F. mounceae for this Obs. is due to the following sequence, rather than any merger of F. pinicola sl:
1. Unpublished MO provisional Name F. pini-canadensis is added (properly) to MO by Herbert Baker. (The name is not published, and possibly would be illegitimate if it were published. I agree with what user Herbert Baker says about application. )
2. Herbert Baker proposes that name for this Obs.
3. The name F. mounceae is published.
4. Walt Sturgeon properly proposes F. mounceae for this Obs.
5. MO provisional Name F. pini-canadensis is merged into F. mounceae.

Reply
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2019-11-01 08:26:22 PDT (-0700)

Correct, Joe. My names were not published, but they were right in the application and should have been synonymized differently to prevent the double name. It would be easier for Mycowalt to destroy the name as he is the only strong vote for his proposal. I cannot destroy mine without Chael lowering his vote.

Joseph, To prevent double names
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2019-11-01 08:13:14 PDT (-0700)

simply don’t merge and destroy them without forethought.

Fomitopsis pinicola sensu lato is not a misapplied named unless we have a better group name for NA collections.

One option is for me to destroy my ID. This would leave only one name.

Answers re F. pinicola & F. mounceae
By: Joseph D. Cohen (Joe Cohen)
2019-11-01 07:52:21 PDT (-0700)

Two questions…
By: Dave W (Dave W) 2019-11-01 04:57:45 PDT (-0700)
In NA is F. mounceae the current name for (the former) F. pinicoloa?

Answer: No.
What was called “Fomitopsis pinicola” has been split. Mycologia 108(5):925 (2016) DOI: 10.3852/14-225R1. See MO Name page for Fomitopsis pinicola group. Note that F. pinicola s.s. is a misapplied name in NA because it is a Eurasian species.

Why are there two separate proposals here for the exact same taxon?

Answer: It’s a very rare programming artifact that relates to merger of names. I once looked into it, but don’t remember the exact explanation. I do remember that (a) it would be impractical to fix, and (b) should not change the consensus.

P.S.:
I started writing the above answer before Herbert posted the response below, then posted it, unaware of his response. His provisional names were never published; Haight et al. used different names.

Hi Dave
By: Erlon (Herbert Baker)
2019-11-01 07:45:50 PDT (-0700)

There are two species in NA, F. mounceae and Fomitopsis schrenkii. The former has a more northern distribution.

My provisional names Fomitopsis pini-canadensis and Fomitopsis ponderosa were destroyed and merged into the new names by an admin when they were published, this is why you see this double name error on MO. I’ve included the paper by Haight et al. (2019), below.

Haight, J. E., Nakasone, K. K., Laursen, G. A., Redhead, S. A., Taylor, D. L., & Glaeser, J. A. (2019). Fomitopsis mounceae and F. schrenkii—two new species from North America in the F. pinicola complex. Mycologia, 111(2), 339-357. https://www.fs.fed.us/...

Two questions…
By: Dave W (Dave W)
2019-11-01 04:57:45 PDT (-0700)

In NA is F. mounceae the current name for (the former) F. pinicoloa?

Why are there two separate proposals here for the exact same taxon?

Created: 2017-11-22 14:49:18 PST (-0800)
Last modified: 2019-11-01 19:56:10 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 107 times, last viewed: 2019-11-29 17:20:25 PST (-0800)
Show Log