29-11-2024 21:47
Yanick BOULANGERBonjourJ'avais un deuxième échantillon moins mat
27-02-2026 17:51
Michel Hairaud
Bonjour, Quelqu'un peut il me donner un conseil p
27-02-2026 16:17
Mathias Hass
Hi, Found this on Betula, rather fresh fallen twi
27-02-2026 12:56
Åge OterhalsFound on fallen cones of Pinus sylvestris in midle
27-02-2026 11:21
Yannick Mourgues
Hi to all. Here is a specie that can may be relat
26-02-2026 15:00
Me mandan el material seco de Galicia, recolectada
24-02-2026 11:01
Gernot FriebesHi,found on a branch of Tilia, with conidia measur
23-02-2026 11:22
Thomas Læssøehttps://svampe.databasen.org/observations/10584971
Hello 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
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
thank you very much. But what about the other name he published in Icones?
Viktorie