|
 HerbBaker
Stranger
Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 2,390
|
 PROP. 1757, to conserve the name Psilocybe 
#11535257 - 11/26/09 10:52 PM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
So this proposal passed by 93%, looks like we get to keep the name Psilocybe for the bluing clade, and the name Deconica is available for the non bluing clade. Let me be the first to say, Deconica atrobrunnea.
PROP. 1757, to conserve the name Psilocybe (Basidiomycota) with a conserved type.
Proposed by Scott A. Redhead, Jean-Marc Moncalvo, Rytas Vilgalys, P. Brandon
Matheny, Laura Guzmán-Dávalos & Gastón Guzmán. TAXON 56(1): 255–257.
(2007).
FIRST VOTE NOW IN PROGRESS; Ballot 2009-1 to be returned by June 1, 2009.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS ON PROP. 1757:
NORV 70321: Yet another difficult instance where molecular analyses support
fragmentation of a large, polyphyletic genus, here into two main clades. The authors
make an excellent case for modern recognition of the name Psilocybe through its
(famously) hallucinogenic representatives. The currently accepted lectotype of the
polyphyletic genus is the “common moss inhabiting, non-hallucinogenic species, P.
montana,” a taxon that “does not produce psilocybin and … falls within the other main
clade, which when separated generically, leaves the hallucinogenic species without a
generic name.” Unfortunately, the lectotypification of P. montana [by Donk in 1949,
1962] was preceded by an earlier lectotypification [of P. merdaria by Clements & Shear
in 1931] that “cannot be superseded except by conservation.” The authors therefore
follow an admittedly novel approach by proposing to conserve the name Psilocybe with
yet another proposed lectotype, the well-known hallucinogenic P. semilanceata
(accepted as lectotype between 1938-1968 by many authors), leaving the name
Deconica (typified byAgaricus physaloides Bull.) available for the non-hallucinogenic
clade.
The authors also offer a second option [B, ‘not recommended’] that would “leave the typification as generally, but incorrectly, accepted until now”, with P. montana as type, after explaining that the previously proposed P. merdaria is atypical of the clade and
noting that then a new name would be needed for the hallucinogenic clade. In view of
the nomenclatural arguments and that the often legally controlled hallucinogenic
compounds psilocin and psilocybin are named after the genus, I tend to support
Proposal A with P. semilanceata as type and reject Proposal B with P. montana as type.
PENN 70821: I support the main proposal to conserve Psilocybe as the name for the
/psychedelia clade, with P. semilanceata as conserved type. A manuscript I have
recently reviewed (shortly to be submitted for publication) will add another element to
the mix — the type of the polyphyletic genus Weraroa, W. novae-zelandiae, lies within
the /psychedelia clade and is reputed (according to various web postings) to be
hallucinogenic. This raises the possibility that, if Psilocybe is retained as the name of
the non-hallucinogenic clade (“option B”), the earliest available generic name for the
/psychedelia clade will be Weraroa, typified by a secotioid New Zealand endemic
species. It is not desirable that such a well-known clade/genus should be typified by
such an anomalous species of limited distribution.
DEMO 80102: I would have preferred to see this proposal based on a more specific
taxonomic revision of Strophariaceae than the general tree of Matheny and al. 2006, a
consensus tree that does not allow to judge the branch lengths and do not accept the
ref. Walther et al. 2005 as demonstrating polyphyly (short branch length and a
situation that could well be paraphyly). Nonetheless if people want to split Deconica
from Psilocybe it is better to fix the type of Psilocybe with the best known species. The
intricate typification story, not quite objectively told in the paper, might thus be
forgotten.
REDH 80104: This proposal is based upon the consistent trend seen in phylogenetic
research, both published and on going. Conservation is required in any event because
nobody is using the correct lectotype. Additionally, we can ensure stability by the
suggested choice. Notably I had the various authors, who are experts on Psilocybe all
agree on this proposal. Gastón Guzmán is the world’s expert on Psilocybe. Laura
Guzmán-Davalos, his daughter and now molecular systematist, obviously supports the the
move.
Edited by HerbBaker (11/26/09 11:25 PM)
|
CureCat
Strangest
Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 13,949
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
Re: PROP. 1757, to conserve the name Psilocybe [Re: HerbBaker]
#11535393 - 11/26/09 11:28 PM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
|
HerbBaker
Stranger
Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 2,390
|
Re: PROP. 1757, to conserve the name Psilocybe [Re: CureCat]
#11535400 - 11/26/09 11:29 PM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
awww..
|
inski
Cortinariologist
Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 2,551
Loc: New Zealand 
|
Re: PROP. 1757, to conserve the name Psilocybe [Re: CureCat]
#11535419 - 11/26/09 11:34 PM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Oh well!
inski.
|
inski
Cortinariologist
Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 2,551
Loc: New Zealand
|
Re: PROP. 1757, to conserve the name Psilocybe [Re: inski]
#11535441 - 11/26/09 11:41 PM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
So what will happen to the combination of Weraroa novae-zelandiae, will it retain it's genus and species name or will it be placed into the genus Psilocybe, I guess Psilocybe novae-zelandiae will have a new combination of Deconica novae-zelandiae since it belongs in the non bluing clade!
inski.
|
CureCat
Strangest
Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 13,949
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
 Re: PROP. 1757, to conserve the name Psilocybe [Re: CureCat]
#11535444 - 11/26/09 11:41 PM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Who the fuck are these 93% that voted in favour of this?
To which institution was this submitted?
Quote:
It is not desirable that such a well-known clade/genus should be typified by such an anomalous species of limited distribution.
This is not an issue of standards so much as a popularity contest. Not scientific!!
Quote:
Nonetheless if people want to split Deconica from Psilocybe it is better to fix the type of Psilocybe with the best known species.
Who are these "people"??
--------------------
|
freespeech
disciple
Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 1,278
Loc: PNW
|
Re: PROP. 1757, to conserve the name Psilocybe [Re: CureCat]
#11535459 - 11/26/09 11:45 PM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
CureCat said:
Why the ? It seems like a good idea to maintain nomenclature consistency with some of the most well known species of mushrooms. The active Psilocybes are more specifically familiar to "non-myco-inclined" folks.
If you would, please explain/link the reason for the beef because I'm new to this topic.
--------------------
|
inski
Cortinariologist
Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 2,551
Loc: New Zealand
|
Re: PROP. 1757, to conserve the name Psilocybe [Re: CureCat]
#11535483 - 11/26/09 11:51 PM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I agree CureCat, it's not very scientific, and does seem to be a popularity contest, most of these people probably don't even know how to pronounce Weraroa properly or have any idea that it is a place in New Zealand where a great and terrible war was fought, this beautiful mushroom was named after this place, but who am I to argue with the scientists anyway!
inski..
|
 tangoking
Lover of Boletes
Registered: 07/02/09
Posts: 874
Loc: New Jersey, USA
Last seen: 1 month, 1 day
|
Re: PROP. 1757, to conserve the name Psilocybe [Re: CureCat]
#11535488 - 11/26/09 11:53 PM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
CureCat said:
Who the fuck are these 93% that voted in favour of this? ... To which institution was this submitted? ... Who are these "people"??
http://www.ima-mycology.org/index.html
http://www.ima-mycology.org/CFF/pdf/comm4cf70531.pdf
--------------------
The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mushrooms said, "...the rule of thumb is to avoid any bolete with orange to red pores, especially any that bruises blue."
Lincoff, (1989). The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mushrooms (pp. 562). New York: Knopf.
STICKY: Hunting/ID Sub-Forum General Guidelines
STICKY: ID Request Guidelines
www.youryoure.com
|
HerbBaker
Stranger
Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 2,390
|
Re: PROP. 1757, to conserve the name Psilocybe [Re: inski]
#11535497 - 11/26/09 11:55 PM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
inski said:
So what will happen to the combination of Weraroa novae-zelandiae, will it retain it's genus and species name or will it be placed into the genus Psilocybe, I guess Psilocybe novae-zelandiae will have a new combination of Deconica novae-zelandiae since it belongs in the non bluing clade!
inski.
Good point inski, that's funny.
Curecat, this is from the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi
A permanent Nomenclature Committee for Fungi is installed by the International Botanical Congress under the auspices of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy. Its task is to discuss and vote on proposals concerning conservation/rejection of fungal names, as well as consider proposals to modify the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature with respect to fungal names. This important function confers a degree of stability upon fungal names.
|
CureCat
Strangest
Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 13,949
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
Re: PROP. 1757, to conserve the name Psilocybe [Re: freespeech]
#11535500 - 11/26/09 11:57 PM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
::deep breath::
I do not give a shit what "non-myco-inclined" people want in relation to mycology. I really really don't. I do not care about appealing to the masses.
This exception to the standard rule is strictly favouritism, it has no scientific basis whatsoever.
Completely uncalled for.
Taxonomy is not intended to be consistent; It is supposed to change as we develop better understanding of the underlying phylogeny.
Tango, thanks. I did find that website, but I posted before I read into it...
I am so pissed.
--------------------
|
HerbBaker
Stranger
Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 2,390
|
Re: PROP. 1757, to conserve the name Psilocybe [Re: CureCat]
#11535510 - 11/27/09 12:01 AM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Those with nomenclatural problems are encouraged to contact the members for advice. If you find any particular fungal name that requires protection, it is recommended that you publish a proposal either to conserve that name or to reject an undesirable name, possibly in collaboration with a member of the committee.
|
inski
Cortinariologist
Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 2,551
Loc: New Zealand
|
Re: PROP. 1757, to conserve the name Psilocybe [Re: CureCat]
#11535523 - 11/27/09 12:09 AM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
It's a shame, but in the end names are just words created by us so that we can communicate with each other about objects without misunderstanding, which is what happens when names are changed so often!
Imagine what would happen if we all suddenly changed our screen names
inski.
|
wowitch17
Growery is Better
Registered: 01/10/06
Posts: 8,537
Loc: Chile
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: PROP. 1757, to conserve the name Psilocybe [Re: CureCat]
#11535660 - 11/27/09 01:16 AM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
CureCat said:
::deep breath::
I do not give a shit what "non-myco-inclined" people want in relation to mycology. I really really don't. I do not care about appealing to the masses.
This exception to the standard rule is strictly favouritism, it has no scientific basis whatsoever.
Completely uncalled for.
Taxonomy is not intended to be consistent; It is supposed to change as we develop better understanding of the underlying phylogeny.
Tango, thanks. I did find that website, but I posted before I read into it...
I am so pissed.
so you think all bluing psilocybes should be put in another genus?
i dont understand..
--------------------
|
CureCat
Strangest
Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 13,949
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
Re: PROP. 1757, to conserve the name Psilocybe [Re: wowitch17]
#11535664 - 11/27/09 01:19 AM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
wowitch17 said:
so you think all bluing psilocybes should be put in another genus?
Yes, Weraroa.
Quote:
wowitch17 said:
i dont understand..
What don't you understand?
--------------------
|
inski
Cortinariologist
Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 2,551
Loc: New Zealand
|
Re: PROP. 1757, to conserve the name Psilocybe [Re: HerbBaker]
#11535666 - 11/27/09 01:19 AM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
So, as I understand it, a proposition would have to be written that would propose the new conserved lectotype for the Psychedelia clade as Weraroa if the rules of nomenclature are to be correctly followed, but it would not be supported because it is such an anomalous species of limited distribution?
inski.
|
wowitch17
Growery is Better
Registered: 01/10/06
Posts: 8,537
Loc: Chile
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: PROP. 1757, to conserve the name Psilocybe [Re: CureCat]
#11535672 - 11/27/09 01:21 AM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
CureCat said:
Quote:
wowitch17 said:
so you think all bluing psilocybes should be put in another genus?
Yes, Weraroa.
Quote:
wowitch17 said:
i dont understand..
What don't you understand?
i just didnt understand why you were pissed
--------------------
|
CureCat
Strangest
Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 13,949
Loc: clawing your furniture
|
Re: PROP. 1757, to conserve the name Psilocybe [Re: inski]
#11535684 - 11/27/09 01:30 AM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
inski said:
but it would not be supported because it is such an anomalous species of limited distribution?
I think that is not the problem.
If there had not been a proposition to conserve the psychadelia clade as Psilocybe, then eventually someone was going to publish an article to place the psychadelia clade into the genus Weraroa.
I wonder how many of these propositions pass.... 93% is a surprisingly high percent of support. Maybe they are push-overs. Or maybe it is all about the people backing the proposition- which in this case, is impressive, however disappointing... At least to me.
If they are just push-overs, then it would seem fairly easy to over turn the ruling, but if it is about who you know.... Well I think I could get some people to back it, though it would mean a lot of work, potentially... But the integrity may be worth it.
--------------------
|
inski
Cortinariologist
Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 2,551
Loc: New Zealand
|
Re: PROP. 1757, to conserve the name Psilocybe [Re: wowitch17]
#11535706 - 11/27/09 01:41 AM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I agree it's more likely that they just don't like the name, which as you said before is not very scientific, I know there are many people here who don't like the name Weraroa, who is qualified to back such a proposition?
Wowitch17, I think CureCat's problem is that if the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature was to be followed the correct name for the Psychedelia Clade would be Weraroa but the proposition in question has been proposed to modify this code so that the name Psilocybe can be retained, please correct me if I've got it wrong CureCat and if someone is going to write this proposition I will back it if I can, but like I said, who am I to argue with the scientists!
inski..
|
elprawn
Mushroom Guestimator
Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 12,392
Loc: Essex, England
Last seen: 17 hours, 3 minutes
|
Re: PROP. 1757, to conserve the name Psilocybe [Re: CureCat]
#11535713 - 11/27/09 01:44 AM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Isn't it Psilocin that makes mushrooms blue and not PSILOCYBin? So why put all non-bluing ones in a different genus?
--------------------
 Looking for Psilocybe mexicana spores.
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
