13-01-2026 18:55
Rees CronceStrossmayeria sp. on indet. decroticate hardwoodTh
13-01-2026 07:57
Danny Newman
cf. Bombardia on indet. decorticate woodAppalachia
11-01-2026 20:35
Josep Torres
Hello.A very tiny pyrenomycete sprouting sparsely
13-01-2026 10:13
Danny Newman
Cordieritidaceae sp. on indet. wood w/ Hypoxylon s
13-01-2026 07:28
Danny Newman
Chlorociboria glauca on indet. decorticate logThe
13-01-2026 07:14
Danny Newman
Neodasyscypha cerina on indet decorticate logThe S
13-01-2026 09:10
Danny Newman
Dasyscyphella chrysotexta on indet. decorticate ha
13-01-2026 08:43
Danny Newman
Tricladium varicosporioides on indet. decorticate
13-01-2026 08:49
Danny Newman
Coccomyces sp. on fallen Rhododendron leavesPretty
12-01-2026 22:02
Ethan CrensonHello all, I am hoping someone will have some ins
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