09-03-2017 22:23
Viktorie Halasu
Hello forum, I'd like to ask, which of the two ge
07-03-2017 22:33
Lepista ZacariasHi everyone,These specimens were found in a public
04-03-2017 17:25
Ethan CrensonOn bare wood in Bronx, New York, US. There were
09-03-2017 15:51
Pablo Sandoval
Estimados,Me podrían dar un consejo o cual es su
06-03-2017 16:27
Pablo Sandoval
Estimados,Alguno de ustedes me podría facilitar l
09-03-2017 00:29
Malcolm Greaves
Can anyone confirm this as Pyrenopeziza plicata?Gr
08-03-2017 01:21
Lepista ZacariasHi again,This fungus was growing on the stem of an
07-03-2017 00:45
Miguel Ángel Ribes
Good night friendsI have this Rosellinia at sea le
08-03-2017 06:38
Ethan CrensonIn New York, Central Park, growing very close to N
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