Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Mushroom-Hut Substrate Bags   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
OfflinePsilicon
Really Nice Guy


Registered: 08/26/12
Posts: 7,057
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
Re: Panaeolus fimicola? [Re: Byrain]
    #21323090 - 02/24/15 02:53 PM (8 years, 11 months ago)

Thanks for the clarification, guys. Very enlightening.  :super:


--------------------
Agar - what, why and how?  Everything a beginner needs to know.
Oat Prep Tek
Bored?  Please take one of my experiments off my hands.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineheelsplitter
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/27/13
Posts: 259
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 7 months, 4 days
Re: Panaeolus fimicola? [Re: Byrain] * 1
    #22451936 - 10/30/15 12:55 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Byrain said:
If you just want to ignore the unresolved issue concerning Panaeolina/Panaeolus castaneifolius, or even P. indica.  Science is not about ignoring inconvenient bits to fit our personal views.



I know I'm commenting on a dead thread, but this just isn't an issue. Panaeolina foenisecii is the type species of Panaeolina. If Panaeolina is kept as a valid genus, it would make it necessary to create at least 2 genera within Panaeolus that aren't substantially different from Panaeolus sensu stricto. Panaeolus cinctulus would no longer be a Panaeolus species. Panaeolina might form a valid clade, which would probably best be kept as a subgenus if P. foenisecii forms a monophyletic group with the other species of Panaeolina, but at the genus level, it's a junior synonym of Panaeolus. P. castaneifolius and P. indica aren't really relevant or inconvenient since neither of them is the type. Panaeolina indica is just one of the many species of fungi that hasn't been transferred out of an invalid genus yet.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAlan RockefellerM
Mycologist
Male User Gallery
Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,311
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
Trusted Identifier
Re: Panaeolus fimicola? [Re: heelsplitter]
    #22455594 - 10/30/15 09:15 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

It is odd that Index Fungorum lists Psathyrella castaneifolia as the most current name for Panaeolina castaneifolia.  I wonder what the story behind that is?

No Psathyrella have roughened spores, so that can't be correct....I just emailed Paul Kirk about it.

Panaeolina foenisecii & P. castaneifolia don't need to be moved because they have already been validly published in Panaeolus.

The following three do need to be moved:

Panaeolina indica
Panaeolina microsperma
Panaeolina sagarae

Panaeolina rhombisperma was moved to Crucispora by Horak in 1980, and I think it likely belongs there.

I'd like to work on moving them, the only thing that I would want to do first is review the microscopic descriptions in the literature to confirm that Panaeolus is the correct place to put them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAlan RockefellerM
Mycologist
Male User Gallery
Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,311
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
Trusted Identifier
Re: Panaeolus fimicola? [Re: Alan Rockefeller]
    #22455616 - 10/30/15 09:20 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Paul Kirk got back to me quickly, he said:

"Off-line update here in South Korea has Panaeolina castaneifolia, following Bon and pending revision based on molecular data. will synchronize with live database when I return to the UK next month."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineheelsplitter
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/27/13
Posts: 259
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 7 months, 4 days
Re: Panaeolus fimicola? [Re: Alan Rockefeller]
    #22488334 - 11/06/15 09:09 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Alan Rockefeller said:
Panaeolina rhombisperma was moved to Crucispora by Horak in 1980, and I think it likely belongs there.




Noordeloos et al. found it to be more likely to just be a weird Psathyrella species with kinda Crucispora-like spores, but they didn't move it there because they didn't sequence it. They do at least have a recent specimen though, so it could be sequenced.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Mushroom-Hut Substrate Bags   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* More Panaeolina castaneifolia parkera26 2,067 14 11/10/13 05:29 PM
by Alan Rockefeller
* Panaeolous subbalteatus or Panaeolina foenisecii (with pics) mister friend 2,146 15 05/02/13 01:50 PM
by Alan Rockefeller
* ovoids -- spring 2011
( 1 2 all )
NVW 3CVdS 3,318 32 04/28/11 04:40 PM
by Ieponumos
* Panaeolina or Panaeolus James3481 873 5 08/03/15 10:47 AM
by thewanderer25
* Panaeolus fimicola or Panaeolina foenisecii? tuck44 2,203 15 12/08/19 01:29 PM
by Fonzino
* Inactive P. cinctulus or P. fimicola??
( 1 2 all )
Olebramserud 1,475 21 11/24/16 10:22 AM
by knarkkorven
* Panaeolina foenisecii v. Panaeolus cinctulus Cowp 810 2 07/21/14 09:15 AM
by Cowp
* Pan. Foes, or Pan. Fimicola? or something else? Medicine_Man 1,128 7 08/28/14 05:51 PM
by Medicine_Man

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: ToxicMan, inski, Alan Rockefeller, Duggstar, TimmiT, Anglerfish, Tmethyl, Lucis, Doc9151, Land Trout
2,717 topic views. 0 members, 8 guests and 11 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.022 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 15 queries.