première rencontre
Rubrique pour apprendre en s'amusant. On poste des photos de champignons déjà déterminés sans en donner le nom...
- Précédente
- 1
- 2
23 messages
Page 2 sur 2
-
Plus d'infos
- Messages : 3707
- Enregistré le : 06 juil. 2009, 11:18
JJWUIL a écrit :la coexistence des deux taxons dans L'Enchiridion de Quélet n'est pas une preuve, sauf que selon Quélet il y a deux espèces (il n'a peut-être pas vu les deux espèces)curieux alors, alors qu'il les sépare bien ; m'enfin hein ? Merci à Albert et JJ des explications. Je reste sur ma faim (cela me rapelle le bolet orangé de Buillard, enfin les explications qu'il y eut de la part de Guillaume)
L
Il est toujours très difficile de se faire ine opinion précise des espèces des auteurs anciens comme Quelet. Un exemple :
La mystérieuse R. rosea de Quelet qui fut renommée R. aurora puis R. velutipes est une russule très commune en franche Comté dont la description pourrait tout aussi bien se rapporter à R. vesca, surtout si on regarde la représentztion de R. vesca, faite par von Post et authentifié par son maître... Fries.
Il faut se souvenir que l'étude micro des champignons étaient peu dévelloppée à l'époque et était souvent, les rares fois où elle existait particulièrement sommaire.
La mystérieuse R. rosea de Quelet qui fut renommée R. aurora puis R. velutipes est une russule très commune en franche Comté dont la description pourrait tout aussi bien se rapporter à R. vesca, surtout si on regarde la représentztion de R. vesca, faite par von Post et authentifié par son maître... Fries.
Il faut se souvenir que l'étude micro des champignons étaient peu dévelloppée à l'époque et était souvent, les rares fois où elle existait particulièrement sommaire.
Quelques compléments :
Committee comments:
NORV 70205: The widespread and well-known train-wrecker, Neolentinus lepideus, is definitely a
destructive fungus of significant economic importance. It is indeed unfortunate that when Fries proposed A. lepideus in 1815, he sanctioned it against older synonyms but not against A. suffrutescens, another earlier named taxon (1805) that he regarded as a distinct species. Eventually, the lesser-known ‘suffrutescens’ came to be regarded as a synonym of ‘lepideus’ by most mycologists. This situation continues to the present day even though May & Wood (1995) treated ‘lepideus’ as a synonym of their new combination, Neolentinus suffrutescens, correctly in accordance with the Sydney Code (1983). This confusing nomenclatural situation is exacerbated by the fact that some authorities list the two names as synonyms while others continue to treat them as independent species.
This situation is definitely complex. As Redhead & al. note, “Adoption of N. suffrutescens is also
historically unusual in that its basionym is not the oldest validly published name, but enjoys a special
status because of a series of unanticipated repercussions of changes to the Code otherwise designed to stabilize nomenclature.” Here the proposers equate ‘valid publication’ with the fact that as both names were sanctioned by Fries in 1815, they both have the same ‘valid’ publication date. The fact that ‘suffrutescens’ as applied to the taxon in question is definitely 10 years older than ‘lepideus’ definitely confuses, however. The fact that the fungus in question is economically well known under the ‘lepideus’ epithet and that May (of May & Wood, 1995) is a co-author – along with a desire to cut short potentially pointless semantic discussions — all lead me to support this proposal.
GAMS 70223: Another very well known species that deserves to retain its name. The
formulation in line 3 of Norv 70205 is not quite adequate: There are simply 2 competing,
sanctioned names, among which normally the oldest must be chosen.
NORV 70223: GAMS 70223 is correct that NORV 70205 confuses the issue. On first reading
the proposal, I erroneously focused on the species epithet rather than the name Neolentinus
suffrutescens, which, in fact, was NOT proposed by May & Wood until 1995. I regret any
confusion my incorrect comment may have caused!
PENN 70325: Although recent New Zealand usage has favoured A. suffrutescens, I am
persuaded that the conservation of A. lepideus is sensible and desirable
Committee comments:
NORV 70205: The widespread and well-known train-wrecker, Neolentinus lepideus, is definitely a
destructive fungus of significant economic importance. It is indeed unfortunate that when Fries proposed A. lepideus in 1815, he sanctioned it against older synonyms but not against A. suffrutescens, another earlier named taxon (1805) that he regarded as a distinct species. Eventually, the lesser-known ‘suffrutescens’ came to be regarded as a synonym of ‘lepideus’ by most mycologists. This situation continues to the present day even though May & Wood (1995) treated ‘lepideus’ as a synonym of their new combination, Neolentinus suffrutescens, correctly in accordance with the Sydney Code (1983). This confusing nomenclatural situation is exacerbated by the fact that some authorities list the two names as synonyms while others continue to treat them as independent species.
This situation is definitely complex. As Redhead & al. note, “Adoption of N. suffrutescens is also
historically unusual in that its basionym is not the oldest validly published name, but enjoys a special
status because of a series of unanticipated repercussions of changes to the Code otherwise designed to stabilize nomenclature.” Here the proposers equate ‘valid publication’ with the fact that as both names were sanctioned by Fries in 1815, they both have the same ‘valid’ publication date. The fact that ‘suffrutescens’ as applied to the taxon in question is definitely 10 years older than ‘lepideus’ definitely confuses, however. The fact that the fungus in question is economically well known under the ‘lepideus’ epithet and that May (of May & Wood, 1995) is a co-author – along with a desire to cut short potentially pointless semantic discussions — all lead me to support this proposal.
GAMS 70223: Another very well known species that deserves to retain its name. The
formulation in line 3 of Norv 70205 is not quite adequate: There are simply 2 competing,
sanctioned names, among which normally the oldest must be chosen.
NORV 70223: GAMS 70223 is correct that NORV 70205 confuses the issue. On first reading
the proposal, I erroneously focused on the species epithet rather than the name Neolentinus
suffrutescens, which, in fact, was NOT proposed by May & Wood until 1995. I regret any
confusion my incorrect comment may have caused!
PENN 70325: Although recent New Zealand usage has favoured A. suffrutescens, I am
persuaded that the conservation of A. lepideus is sensible and desirable
- Précédente
- 1
- 2
23 messages
Page 2 sur 2