Sorry, I guess the site doesn't like Cyrillic. Here is a transliteration:

Soprunov F. F. 1958. Khishchnyye griby-gifomitsety i ikh primeneniye v bor?be s patogennyyemi nematodami. Ashkhabad.

I am also attaching a file that has the original.

We also have only the English translation, but our copy includes the original page numbers, so if you say us the names we can hopefully tell you the pages.

Hi James, I took our book downstairs and am waiting for the pages for which you want to know the original numbers.

Sorry for my late reply; I was waiting to look at the English translation I could access. One of the pages I am looking for is 113, with Trichothecium cladodes var. macroides. In the translation I have, it is page 74, though.

Yes, I have 74 as printed page number for this species and 113 written by pencil.

Ah, thank you. It might help to explain what I am doing. I am volunteering at MycoBank to check the entries and make sure the information is correct. I am trying to verify all the nomenclatural novelties, so I guess scattered between pages 74 and 105 in the translated book. I don't have a full list of the names yet, but I could write one up. Are the pages in 1:1 correspondence? In records I could find, it seems the original is maybe 60 pages longer than the translated version.

I haven't heard from Paul in a while, either, but I haven't tried contacting him. I hope he is alright. 

For your issue, since Fries sanctioned it as "lilacina," I think Art F.3.2 says that is the epithet that should be kept. Even without the sanctioning, since it is a replacement name for Wulfen's illegitimate name there is no obligation to maintain the epithet as used by Wulfen, and I think Fries' spelling should be used. If Paul still is not responding, you could ask Shaun Pennycook in New Zealand, perhaps.

For the original matter, I found a library with an original edition of Soprunov's book and they sent me a scan of the taxonomic part. I am attaching it in case you find it helpful: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hpxk-NawYRzPec1TJOn6u-9dUp-jd-pZ/view?usp=sharing. I fear most if not all of his names are invalid, looking at it.

I apologize; I misinterpreted something on the IF page for Peziza lilacina. You are right, the situtation is more complicated than I thought, and depends on whether you think what Fries did was publishing a replacement name, or an orthographic correction of Wulfen's name.

I think the whole issue hinges on which names are sanctioned. Sanctioning (per Article F.3.1) only applies to the specific names adopted by Persoon or Fries in the sanctioning work. In this particular case, the sanctioned name is Peziza lilacina and not Helvella lilacea/lilacina Wulf. To give another example, in the case of Boletus brumalis Pers. and Polyporus brumalis (Pers.) Fr., Polyporus brumalis is sanctioned, but Boletus brumalis is not. Article F.3.4 therefore does not apply to Helvella lilacea/lilacina Wulf. or Boletus brumalis Pers.

If you interpret what Fries did as publishing a replacement name, then Wulfen's Helvella lilacea is legitimate, but Fries' sanctioned replacement name Peziza lilacina Fr. is the one that the epithet should be taken from, per Art. F.3.7. The correct name would be Ascocoryne lilacina (Fr.) Baral et al., as it is on IF.

If instead you interpret what Fries did as making an orthographic correction, the situation changes (but not the outcome). If Fries was correcting Helvella lilacea Wulf. to Helvella lilacina Wulf., then H. lilacina Wulf. 1787 is a later homonym of Helvella lilacina Batsch 1786. Without the protection of Art. F.3.4, Wulfen's name is then illegitimate as a later homonym, and again Fries' Peziza lilacina is a replacement name for the illegitimate "Helvella lilacina Wulf." The epithet is then to be taken from Fries name, and the correct name is Ascocoryne lilacina (Fr.) Baral et al. again.

If is my belief, since Fries cited Wulfen's name as "Elv. lilacina. Wulf. in Jacqu. Coll. p. 347." (https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/4335230#page/146/mode/1up), that this latter view is the one to take as Fries (either mistakenly or not) thought this was the way Wulfen's name was spelled or ought to have been spelled. He did something similar under the name Hydnum barba-jovis (https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/4338561#page/485/mode/1up) where no mention is made of the fact that Bulliard originally published the name as "barba-jobi" (https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/25379#page/7/mode/1up). This is just my opinion, though; other people may feel differently about it.

You are right that Art. F.9 does not apply here, and I do not think Art. 60 does either (perhaps something in it does and I am missing it, though; as you say, it is very long). I am of the opinion that in any case, the correct name is the one you published in 2020, Ascocoryne lilacina (Fr.) Baral et al.

I am not sure that it matters that Fries' change was unnecessary; the case cited in the Code doesn't seem to have been necessary (but isn't wrong) (Merulius lacrimans vs. Merulius lacrymans). The other case I cited also doesn't seem to have been needed and even changes the meaning of the name: Hydnum barba-jobi (beard of Job, the Bible character) versus H. barba-jovis (beard of Jove, the Roman god). Your case could be a typographical or other error on Fries' part, but that argument would seem to extend to any of his or Persoon's other corrections that was not strictly necessary (but also doesn't require correction by Arts. 60, 61, or F.9). The necessary changes also seem like they would be covered by Art. F.9, or 60-61, and so the provision in Art. F.3.2 presumably is explicitly for the purpose of protecting Fries and Persoon's unnecessary (but not wrong) orthography changes.

The prior publication of Peziza lilacea by de Lamarck and de Candolle is a good catch; here, I assume: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/104010#page/229/mode/1up? That complicates things somewhat. If you take Fries' name as a replacement name, then it is much as before: Helvella lilacea and P. lilacea are fine and legitimate, but the epithet to use is from P. lilacina. If you see it as an orthographic correction, then both Lamarck and de Candolle's name and Fries' name are replacement names for Wulfen's illegitimate name. How far should the correction extend, though? If you correct P. lilacea Lam. & DC., then Fries' name becomes an isonym, and the basionym to cite is P. lilacina Lam. & DC., nom. sanct. It feels odd to say their name is sanctioned, though, since Fries does not mention them. On the other hand, if you don't correct it, then Peziza lilacea Lam. & DC. and P. lilacina Fr. are both replacement names for H. lilacina Wulf., but the latter is sanctioned and so that is the citation and epithet to use.

Well, it certainly seems to be a complicated case. I would be interested to hear what other people think ought to be the resolution to it, and I hope you find a satisfactory answer at some point.

I am not sure that it matters that Fries' change was unnecessary; the case cited in the Code doesn't seem to have been necessary (but isn't wrong) (Merulius lacrimans vs. Merulius lacrymans). The other case I cited also doesn't seem to have been needed and even changes the meaning of the name: Hydnum barba-jobi (beard of Job, the Bible character) versus H. barba-jovis (beard of Jove, the Roman god). Your case could be a typographical or other error on Fries' part, but that argument would seem to extend to any of his or Persoon's other corrections that was not strictly necessary (but also doesn't require correction by Arts. 60, 61, or F.9). The necessary changes also seem like they would be covered by Art. F.9, or 60-61, and so the provision in Art. F.3.2 presumably is specifically for the purpose of protecting Fries and Persoon's unnecessary (but not wrong) orthography changes. I guess because so many people just consulted them and those spellings were so prevalent it would be disruptive to change them.

The prior publication of Peziza lilacea by de Lamarck and de Candolle is a good catch; here, I assume: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/104010#page/229/mode/1up? That complicates things somewhat. If you take Fries' name as a replacement name, then it is much as before: Helvella lilacea and P. lilacea are fine and legitimate, but the epithet to use is from P. lilacina. If you see it as an orthographic correction, then both Lamarck and de Candolle's name and Fries' name are replacement names for Wulfen's illegitimate name. How far should the correction extend, though? If you correct P. lilacea Lam. & DC., then Fries' name becomes an isonym, and the basionym to cite is P. lilacina Lam. & DC., nom. sanct. It feels odd to say their name is sanctioned, though, since Fries does not mention them. On the other hand, if you don't correct it, then Peziza lilacea Lam. & DC. and P. lilacina Fr. are both replacement names for H. lilacina Wulf., but the latter is sanctioned and so that is the citation and epithet to use.

Well, it certainly seems to be a complicated case. I would be interested to hear what other people think ought to be the resolution to it, and I hope you find a satisfactory answer at some point.

I think this is somewhat unclear clear in the Code as it is currently written. Art. F.3.1 says "Names in Uredinales, Ustilaginales, and Gasteromycetes (s. l.) adopted by Persoon (Synopsis methodica fungorum, 1801) and names of other fungi (excluding slime moulds) adopted by Fries (Systema mycologicum, vol. 1–3. 1821–1832, with additional Index, 1832; and Elenchus fungorum, vol. 1–2. 1828), are sanctioned." I take this to mean that only the names they adopted (the heading names for entries, usually) are considered sanctioned, as this section makes no mention of previous homotypic names; this seems to be borne out in Ex. 3 & 9, for example. When Art. F.3.2 says "Names sanctioned are treated as if conserved against earlier homonyms and competing synonyms," I then take that to mean that only the sanctioned name gets that protection. This seems to be the way it works with conserved homonyms; the protection does not extend to all combinations based on the same basionym, just the specific name conserved. As a thought exercise, what if one combined a sanctioned name in a genus such that the combination was a later homonym of a name that did not have a sanctioned or conserved name as a homotypic synonym? I cannot believe that the Code would say that the later name is to be automatically taken as protected against the former in this case.
That said, I would not be surprised if it was an unwritten convention to treat the basionyms of sanctioned names as conserved against earlier homonyms, perhaps by interpreting F.3.1 to apply to basionyms in some way being taken up by Fries or Persoon accepting them as the basis for their accepted combinations. I do not know if this is the case, but if it is I think it should be put into the Code more explicitly since at present I do not see what supports it.

I am not sure if I could follow you in every respect, but I understand from your text that it is the epithet that is sanctioned, with the intention to minimize name changes. The usual case would be that sanctioning concerns heterotypic names, but when Fries changed the orthography of an epithet it affects also homotypic names.