![](/images/nonlu.png)
21-07-2024 10:13
![Thierry Blondelle](/uploads/user_vgn/-0211.jpg)
Bonjour,Récolte sur branchette de Castanea dans u
![](/images/nonlu.png)
21-07-2024 10:28
![Alan Rockefeller](/uploads/user_vgn/-0063.jpg)
Which Peziza did I find on horse dung in Humboldt
![](/images/nonlu.png)
19-07-2024 11:08
![Miguel Ãngel Ribes](/uploads/user_vgn/Ribes-0001.jpg)
Good morningThis Scutellinia from July 9 grew at 1
![](/images/nonlu.png)
21-07-2024 06:23
Masanori KutsunaDear all, Does anyone have these papers and send
![](/images/nonlu.png)
08-07-2024 23:34
Villalonga PacoSmall Scutellinia growing in garden soil (calcareo
![](/images/nonlu.png)
16-07-2024 18:32
![Andgelo Mombert](/uploads/user_vgn/Mombert-0001.jpg)
Bonsoir, Un discomycète sur Liochlaena lanceolat
Tapesia
Chris Yeates,
05-02-2022 19:11
![Chris Yeates](/uploads/user_vgn/Yeates-0001.jpg)
Bonsoir
Am I correct in thinking that while Tapesia is no longer considered to be a justifiable genus v. Mollisia, there are a number of combinations which have not yet been made? I am assuming that older combinations in Mollisia can be treated as the valid current name - e.g. M. evilescens (P. Karst.) Mussat, and M. fusca (Pers.) P. Karst. ?
Also I am assuming that a new specific name would be needed for Tapesia cinerella Rehm, which seems not to be conspecific with Mollisia cinerella Sacc.
Clarification welcomed!
Amitiés, Chris
Nicolas VAN VOOREN,
07-02-2022 08:57
![Nicolas VAN VOOREN](/uploads/user_vgn/VAN-VOOREN-0001.jpg)
Re : Tapesia
Hi Chris.
Tapesia is a rejected name, against Mollisia, as indicated in the Appendix III of Shenzhen Code.
As a consequence, all validly published names in Tapesia should be combined in Mollisia, except if such combination already exists.
As Tapesia cinerella Rehm does not share the same type of Mollisia cinerella Sacc., a new name is required to combine it in Mollisia.
Tapesia is a rejected name, against Mollisia, as indicated in the Appendix III of Shenzhen Code.
As a consequence, all validly published names in Tapesia should be combined in Mollisia, except if such combination already exists.
As Tapesia cinerella Rehm does not share the same type of Mollisia cinerella Sacc., a new name is required to combine it in Mollisia.
Chris Yeates,
07-02-2022 16:54
![Chris Yeates](/uploads/user_vgn/Yeates-0001.jpg)
Re : Tapesia
Un grand merci Nicolas
C'est exactement comme ça que j'ai interprété la situation.
Amitiés,Chris
Hans-Otto Baral,
07-02-2022 22:37
![Hans-Otto Baral](/uploads/user_vgn/Baral-0001.jpg)
Re : Tapesia
Yes, some new combinations would be necessary. The only thing is whether the species in question is a good one or perhaps only a synonym of another. Many such synonymies are still to be discovered, and Mollisia with its high species diversity is a good example, either between teleomorphs or between teleomorphs and an anamorph that might have priority.