01-01-2016 21:07
Bernard CLESSE
Probablement une banalité mais j'aimerais avoir v
01-01-2016 22:09
Bernard CLESSE
Bonsoir à tous,Autre espèce à confirmer si vous
01-01-2016 17:53
Thomas KehletHi.Spores 6-9 um.Danmark 23/12/2015.Totally unknow
31-12-2015 19:19
Francisco SÁNCHEZ
The ascomata, up to 1 mm in diameter, erumpent,gro
31-12-2015 16:06
Cvenkel MiranComments on this :photo ?Red: Coryne dubia (Ascoco
30-12-2015 23:14
Bernard CLESSE
Je pense être en présence de la banale Scutellin
30-12-2015 11:58
Castillo Joseba
En rama posiblemente de haya (Fagus)A ver que os p
I need these two papers. Can you help me?
GALLI R. & LITTINI G. 1981. — Una specie critica di Gyromitra. Micologia
italiana, 1 : 43-46.
LITTINI G. 1988. — Gyromitra ticiniana sp. nov. Pagine di botanica,
12 : 17-20.
Thanks in advance
je t'envoie l'article de Littini.
Amitiés
François
we had a discussion about Gyromitra ticiniana on ActaFungorum some years ago, here: http://www.actafungorum.org/actaforum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2962
The author (Littini) focused on the differences with G. fastigiata but the most similar, if not identical, species is G. gigas.
In G. ticiniana when fully ripe and dried out the spore are slightly reticulate, not smooth as Littini described.
Nevertheless when you keep in hand the two, the feeling is of two different things.
Of course the "feeling" is not enough to separate the species, but more studies have to come.
Regards
Mario
Hi Mario
Yes. I have read the Acta Fungorum
My fungus have very finely reticulate ascospores but this ornamentation is not cianofilic, so difficult to observe (better in water) and only on very mature ascospores of a spore print.
My collection was made at 1400 m of altitude, under Corylus on calcareous soil. Together with Ptychoverpa bohemica and Morchella esculenta.
I have seen your beautiful documentation about this species.
I do not agree with the conclusion of Riva, saying that the original publication made by Littini of G. ticiniana is invalid.
Riva states that Littini failed to designate the type specimen in the diagnosis, and it's true, but as he indicated it however in the protologue, I think Gyromitra ticiniana is validly published and Gyromitra littiniana is superfluous.
Mario
I just have a discussion with Paul Kirk. IndexFungorum is now modified in that way:
G. ticiniana Littini is valid and G. littiniana is invalid regarding the requirements of the code Melbourne 40.6 "For the name of a new taxon of the rank of genus or below published on or after 1 January 1990, indication of the type must include one of the words "typus" or "holotypus", or its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern language". Riva did not include it.
Cheers
François
http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/NamesRecord.asp?RecordID=587070
http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/NamesRecord.asp?RecordID=585399
Thank you François!
Mario