Observation 76107: Agaricus bernardii Quél.

in grass.



Proposed Names

7% (2)
Eye3 Eyes3
Recognized by sight: white cap, short stature, base turns a bit orange-red with handling.
Based on chemical features: iodine odor.
10% (2)
Recognized by sight

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

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
By: Rick Kerrigan (rwkerrigan)
2016-11-02 19:43:35 -05 (-0500)

Writing the Agaricus book, I learned more about the Code (the ICBN, when I began) than I… whatever. Anyway, there is a little rule (can you find it?) that the -ii ending should be used when grammatically indicated for names formed from the names of persons, except when the person’s name being used is in an already-latinized form like Linnaeus for Linne (or “Bernardus”, in this case); then use the -i.

The delights of nomenclature… Let’s do our best and not be too hard on ourselves. That faint laughter in the meadow is…

It seems half-clear
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2016-09-04 17:02:54 -05 (-0500)

That and this link are clear about such errors being “to be corrected”… but by that are they calling for a publication correcting it, or for the corrected version to just straight up be adopted?


“60.11. The use of a termination (for example -i, -ii, -ae, -iae, -anus, or -ianus) contrary to Rec. 60C.1 is treated as an error to be corrected (…)
This is of course a classical source of mistakes. People tend to quote names the way they were introduced, even if they are wrong. And although the spelling is indicated in a recommendation, this paragraph clearly states such terminations are to be corrected! "

oh yeah …
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2016-09-04 10:32:38 -05 (-0500)

heaps! ;)

like I said, I’m waiting for the publication. Let these names be somebody else’s headache.

I yi yi.

Does this help?
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2016-09-04 10:24:49 -05 (-0500)
publication not opinion
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2016-09-04 10:00:59 -05 (-0500)

is what really counts.

I was actually thinking about all your efforts in name changing when I wrote that message!

Hopefully, Kerrigan has gone with the single “i” in his book, now promised to be in our hands sometime this month. Maybe.

Otherwise, it’s name housekeeping time, again!

Well, I think
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2016-09-03 15:24:17 -05 (-0500)

Kerrigan’s opinion, despite being from personal communication, is a stronger force than IF’s, you don’t?

(I’m glad I think that because I don’t want to have to housekeep 67 other observations back to -ii…)

possibly premature
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2016-09-03 15:12:51 -05 (-0500)

only Mycobank is currently using/preferring this name with one “i”.

I would have waited for Kerrigan’s publication to know for sure where we stand, on this and so many other Agaricus names in flux or merely nom. provs.

So close …

Hey, at least we aren’t arguing who this mushroom is, just what to call it, today.

Explanation is on the A. bernardi name page
By: Jacob Kalichman (Pulk)
2016-09-03 13:21:21 -05 (-0500)

I think it’s from Alan. I’ve been under the impression that the code supports using the correct name even when a screwed up one is published.

why did you drop the extra “i”?
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2016-09-03 11:09:30 -05 (-0500)

Index Fungorum and Mycobank disagree; Kerrigan is not quite published.

Created: 2011-09-11 21:46:09 -05 (-0500)
Last modified: 2017-01-02 00:23:24 -05 (-0500)
Viewed: 101 times, last viewed: 2018-06-03 08:52:59 -05 (-0500)
Show Log