|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
Psilicon
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.
|
heelsplitter


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.
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,311
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
|
|
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.
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,311
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
|
|
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."
|
heelsplitter


Registered: 12/27/13
Posts: 259
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 7 months, 4 days
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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 ] |
|