Accès membres

Mot de passe perdu? S'inscrire

21-03-2026 22:59

Petr Soucek

Good evening, I would appreciate some advice on th

21-03-2026 15:13

Lepista Zacarias

Hello everyone, Does any one know of any literatu

20-03-2026 12:53

Stefan Blaser

Hello everybody, In the field, from distance, my

20-10-2017 09:23

Garcia Susana

Este otro crecía en el mismo trocito de madera qu

20-03-2026 16:16

Edvin Johannesen Edvin Johannesen

These 0.5 mm diam. acervuli were breaking through

19-03-2026 19:34

Filip Fuljer Filip Fuljer

Hello everyone,a few days ago I collected this str

19-03-2026 18:25

William Slosse William Slosse

Good evening everyone, On 18/03/26 I found a few

17-03-2026 10:09

François Freléchoux François Freléchoux

Bonjour, Voici la description rapide d'un petit d

19-03-2026 15:58

Stefan Blaser

Hello everybody, I hope for some hints... Macro:

19-03-2026 17:50

Enrique Rubio Enrique Rubio

Hi to everybodyThese thiny, blackish pseudothecia

« < 1 2 3 4 5 > »
Aleuria bicucullata - nomenclatural question
Viktorie Halasu, 09-03-2017 22:23
Viktorie HalasuHello forum,

I'd like to ask, which of the two generic names for Aleuria (or Peziza) bicucullata published by Boudier is the one, that should be cited as basionym? And, consequently, if the current author citation is A. bicucullata Boud. or something else.


Name no. 1: 


Aleuria bicucullata Boud., Bull. Soc. bot. Fr. Tom. XXVIII, p. 93. PI. III, fig. 1. (1881).
Published also in: Aleuria bicucullata (Boud.) Gillet, Champignons de France, Discom. (8): 205 (1886) [1879]
New combination: Peziza bicucullata (Boud.) Sacc., Syll. fung. VIII: 75 (1889).


Boudier's description of new species was read by Mr. Malinvaud on a session of the French Botanical Society, then printed in a report from that session. Does this count as a valid publication? Lack of latin diagnosis should be no problem (as much as I know), since it was published before 1.1.1908.
Saccardo cites A. bicucullata Boud. as basionym, but also writes "Gill. Disc. c. ic." - what does the "c. ic." mean?
I also read the combination Aleuria bicucullata (Boud.) Gillet in article by Moravec (1972) - is that a valid combination at all?


Name no. 2:


Peziza bicucullata Boud., Icones Mycologicae Pl. 183 (between 1904 and 1910 - I failed to find any list, which taxon belongs to which "livraison")
New combination: none?


How should I interpret this - invalid combination (without citing the name Aleuria bicucullata Boud. from 1881, only bibliografic source)?
Shouldn't it be rather P. bicucullata (Boud.) Boud.? 


Sources online:
Boudier (1881): http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/8651#page/99/mode/1up
Gillet (1886): http://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/ing/Libro.php?Libro=3449&Pagina=207
Saccardo (1889): http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/102784#page/99/mode/1up
Boudier (1904-1910, description in Tome IV): http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/105401#page/193/mode/1up


Thank you very much for anything that helps me to understand a bit the intricacies of nomenclature.
Viktorie

Nicolas VAN VOOREN, 09-03-2017 23:10
Nicolas VAN VOOREN
Re : Aleuria bicucullata - nomenclatural question
Hi Viktorie.
Aleuria bicucullata was described and illustrated by Boudier in the Bulletin de la Société botanique de France, vol. 28, in 1881. This name is perfectly valid.
Best.
Nicolas
Viktorie Halasu, 09-03-2017 23:12
Viktorie Halasu
Re : Aleuria bicucullata - nomenclatural question
Hello Nicolas,
thank you very much. But what about the other name he published in Icones?
Viktorie
 
Nicolas VAN VOOREN, 09-03-2017 23:17
Nicolas VAN VOOREN
Re : Aleuria bicucullata - nomenclatural question
You can consider it as an illegitimate combination.