Species Lists


Proposed Names

11% (5)
Recognized by sight: same mushroom, new name.

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

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus


Add Comment
Thank you Noah
By: Irene Andersson (irenea)
2013-01-30 01:05:44 MST (-0700)

for explaining what you are up to. These name changes are not what we should expect in the 21st century, published with no background info at all.

Maybe it’s merely an experiment by Scott Redhead and Paul Kirk, to see how people react to it – if new genera are getting accepted as if IndexFungorum is the bible..?

I agree with Adolf and would also have preferred a different approach on Coprinus, but (again!)the silly nomenclature rules (comatus being the type species, among other obstacles) made it impossible.

Index Fungorum vs. MycoBank
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2013-01-29 21:35:43 MST (-0700)

Original draft of the ICN (Melbourne) appointed MycoBank as a depository of new names of fungi:
Index Fungorum came into the picture later together with the Fungal Names:
Those three databases share the same information.
My impression is that Index Fungorum was originally ignored, because by its references to Species Fungorum, it makes the taxonomical decisions that are far beyond the mere registry. MycoBank is more neutral.
You don’t have to jump on any name that has been validly (you say legally) published, just because muses (or rather nymphs in this case)kissed a certain mycologist. Mushroom Observer is becoming a strange mishmash of large genera (Cortinarius, Entoloma) and the genera that have been chopped into smaller ones (e.g. Coprinus s.lat.). For this reason I prefer the name Mycena speirea to Phloeomona speirea. Just remember that the fungi themselves do not care how they are called. – Adolf

Thank you for questioning it.
By: Noah Siegel (Noah)
2013-01-29 19:48:55 MST (-0700)

I put up these names today not because I think we should run out and use them, but because they were legally published and “accepted” by Index Fungorum.
THAT doesn’t mean we have to accept them, we can make up our own minds and just because “Index Fungorum says so” DOES NOT mean it’s right or the final say.

To recognize a genus because of:
Phloeomana Redhead, gen.nov. IF550123

Basidiomes mycenoid, fuscous, on bark and decayed phloem. Lamellae broadly attached, with decurrent tooth or arcuate.
Basidiospores nonamyloid, smooth, thin-walled. Pileus tissues nonreactive in Melzer’s reagent, not encrusted. Cheilocystidia
abundant, only slightly differentiated from basidia. Pleurocystidia absent except near lamellar edge. Pileipellis hyphae with
branched excresences. Stipitipellis hyphae smooth, with patches of irregular cystidioid end cells.

Holotype: Agaricus speireus Fr. 1815.

Phylogenetically in the Agaricales, Porotheleaceae. Gender: feminine

Etymology: Alluding to phloeo- (G. tree bark) and to ‘mana’ (Oceanic: vaguely referring to spirit or), i.e. a bark spirit."

In this day of age it seems wrong. These brief descriptions remind me of Crazy Old Man Murrill

Mycena speirea vs. Phloeomana speirea
By: Oluna & Adolf Ceska (aceska@telus.net)
2013-01-29 17:23:59 MST (-0700)

I would suggest to be more conservative and to wait to see if the new genera Scott Redhead established will be accepted by other mycologists.

Created: 2011-03-09 21:00:36 MST (-0700)
Last modified: 2013-01-29 23:38:11 MST (-0700)
Viewed: 172 times, last viewed: 2020-05-21 05:43:13 MDT (-0600)
Show Log