
05-07-2025 12:38
Åge OterhalsI found this pyrenomycetous fungi in pine forest o

02-07-2025 18:45
Elisabeth StöckliBonsoir,Sur feuilles d'Osmunda regalis (Saulaie),

04-07-2025 20:12
Hello.A fungus growing on the surface of a trunk o

20-06-2025 08:33
Hello.Small, blackish, mucronated surface grains s

28-06-2025 16:00
Hello.A tiny fungus shaped like globose black grai

04-07-2025 12:43
me mandan el material seco de Galicia (España)

I have a nomenclatural question:
When Nannfeldt (1932) created the genus Dibeloniella, he combined there Cenangium raineri de Not. (1841) as type species. Beloniella vossii (Rehm) Rehm is its synonym, so he listed it too, picking the older of the two epithets. No matter, whether the latter is based on Mollisia v. or Pyrenopeziza v., both were published in 1884. But IF lists also a combination Dibeloniella vossii (Rehm) Nannf., being made on the same page as D. raineri. Nannfeldt didn't explicitly made it, but as the type species of Dibeloniella he wrote "Beloniella vossii Rehm (= Cenangium raineri de Not.)". Is it possible, that he unintentionally combined M./P. vossii into Dibeloniella, too?
The only other (online) source I've found the combination D. vossii (Rehm) Nannf. is a manuscript version of Notes for genera: Ascomycota (Wijayawardene et al, 2017), in the published version Dibeloniella is only mentioned as a synonym of Mollisia, without its type species. Other treatments of the genus list D. raineri as the type (Hütter 1958; Müller et Défago 1967; Nauta et Spooner 2000).
I'm not actually working with the genus, just trying to understand the Code better.
Viktorie


