Accès membres

Mot de passe perdu? S'inscrire

21-03-2026 15:13

Lepista Zacarias

Hello everyone, Does any one know of any literatu

20-03-2026 12:53

Stefan Blaser

Hello everybody, In the field, from distance, my

20-10-2017 09:23

Garcia Susana

Este otro crecía en el mismo trocito de madera qu

20-03-2026 16:16

Edvin Johannesen Edvin Johannesen

These 0.5 mm diam. acervuli were breaking through

19-03-2026 19:34

Filip Fuljer Filip Fuljer

Hello everyone,a few days ago I collected this str

19-03-2026 18:25

William Slosse William Slosse

Good evening everyone, On 18/03/26 I found a few

17-03-2026 10:09

François Freléchoux François Freléchoux

Bonjour, Voici la description rapide d'un petit d

19-03-2026 15:58

Stefan Blaser

Hello everybody, I hope for some hints... Macro:

19-03-2026 17:50

Enrique Rubio Enrique Rubio

Hi to everybodyThese thiny, blackish pseudothecia

18-03-2026 13:09

Khomenko Igor Khomenko Igor

I recently examined Celtis occidentalis branches

« < 1 2 3 4 5 > »
Paoletti
Stip Helleman, 10-02-2024 21:04
Stip Helleman
Hello,

can anybody help me with this article and plate?

PAOLETTI, G., 1887. - Revisione del genere Tubercularia. - Revisione del genere Tubercularia . Atti della Societa veneto- trentina di scienze naturali 11

thanks in advance,

Stip
Martin Bemmann, 10-02-2024 21:23
Martin Bemmann
Re : Paoletti
Hi Stip,

here it is. But it seems it is in the yearbook for the year 1887 that was printed in 1888.

Best regards

Martin
Stip Helleman, 10-02-2024 21:30
Stip Helleman
Re : Paoletti
Hallo Martin!

Du bist Supermann! Ja ich hätte schon gesehen das die Nummerierung nicht immer ganz gestimmt hat.

Herzlichen Dank!

Stip
Stip Helleman, 10-02-2024 21:53
Stip Helleman
Re : Paoletti
Irgendwo verstehe ich etwas nicht, wo ist der Dendrodochium pinastri gegrundet??

in Anhang Saccardo SF10
  • message #78193
Stip Helleman, 10-02-2024 21:58
Stip Helleman
Re : Paoletti
Verzeiung, schon gesehen, der ist in der Appendix
Martin Bemmann, 10-02-2024 21:59
Martin Bemmann
Re : Paoletti
It is on p. 65 and tab. III/31-35. Maybe Saccardo had a separatum of the article with deviant page numbers.

Regards

Martin