20-10-2025 09:36
Nicolas VAN VOOREN
Hello.I'm searching for the following article:Bene
21-10-2025 23:13
F. JAVIER BALDA JAUREGUIHello to everyone.Did you think it could, be a pyx
22-10-2025 14:45
Lukas VerboomDear all,I collected this in the Netherlands, on t
22-10-2025 11:13
Jean-Luc RangerBonjour, Petites boules plus ou moins sphériqu
21-10-2025 21:25
Philippe PELLICIERBonjour,J'ai récolté en septembre sur une litiè
17-10-2025 18:45
Riet van Oosten
Hello, Found by Laurens van der Linde, Oct. 2025.
21-10-2025 21:34
Margot en Geert VullingsThis cup fungus was found on the ground in a damp
21-10-2025 04:52
Francois Guay
I found what might be Chlorociboria aeruginella on
I need these two papers. Can you help me?
GALLI R. & LITTINI G. 1981. — Una specie critica di Gyromitra. Micologia
italiana, 1 : 43-46.
LITTINI G. 1988. — Gyromitra ticiniana sp. nov. Pagine di botanica,
12 : 17-20.
Thanks in advance
je t'envoie l'article de Littini.
Amitiés
François
we had a discussion about Gyromitra ticiniana on ActaFungorum some years ago, here: http://www.actafungorum.org/actaforum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2962
The author (Littini) focused on the differences with G. fastigiata but the most similar, if not identical, species is G. gigas.
In G. ticiniana when fully ripe and dried out the spore are slightly reticulate, not smooth as Littini described.
Nevertheless when you keep in hand the two, the feeling is of two different things.
Of course the "feeling" is not enough to separate the species, but more studies have to come.
Regards
Mario
Hi Mario
Yes. I have read the Acta Fungorum
My fungus have very finely reticulate ascospores but this ornamentation is not cianofilic, so difficult to observe (better in water) and only on very mature ascospores of a spore print.
My collection was made at 1400 m of altitude, under Corylus on calcareous soil. Together with Ptychoverpa bohemica and Morchella esculenta.
I have seen your beautiful documentation about this species.
I do not agree with the conclusion of Riva, saying that the original publication made by Littini of G. ticiniana is invalid.
Riva states that Littini failed to designate the type specimen in the diagnosis, and it's true, but as he indicated it however in the protologue, I think Gyromitra ticiniana is validly published and Gyromitra littiniana is superfluous.
Mario
I just have a discussion with Paul Kirk. IndexFungorum is now modified in that way:
G. ticiniana Littini is valid and G. littiniana is invalid regarding the requirements of the code Melbourne 40.6 "For the name of a new taxon of the rank of genus or below published on or after 1 January 1990, indication of the type must include one of the words "typus" or "holotypus", or its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern language". Riva did not include it.
Cheers
François
http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/NamesRecord.asp?RecordID=587070
http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/NamesRecord.asp?RecordID=585399
Thank you François!
Mario