Taxon swap aaaaaa 48px Taxonomic Swap 71369 (Guardado el 11/02/2020)

Notes, outline and divergence times o... (Referencia)
Añadido por jameskm el 11 de febrero de 2020 | Comprometido por jameskm el 11 de febrero de 2020
Reemplazado con



It is worth commenting that the cited article does not take into account many phyllogenetically supported generic affiliations in the recent (last 10 years) literature. It doesn't seem to be much of a change to the last Dictionary of Fungi, and a lot of work has been done since. It isn't very useful in my opinion and I would not base the iNat classification on it.

Regarding Cyphellopsidaceae/Niaceae then things aren't so straightforward. Julich in Bibliotheca Mycologica V85 1981 erected many new family names across all basidiomycota. Most of these sank into obscurity until modern molecular treatments required some of them to be rehabilitated, albeit with quite different taxon concepts. Cyphellopsidaceae and Niaceae are both from Julich. There is little doubt these refer to the same taxon including Nia, Cyphellopsis and the much better known general like Lachnella, Flagelloscypha and Merismodes. The family name Cyphellopsidaceae was rejected against Tricholomataceae, but that is not relevant here as they have no taxonomic relationship to the modern restricted concept of the Tricholomataceae. However there is another family name to consider. The Lachnellaceae (originally with a French ending) was erected by Boudier based on Lachnella alboviolascens. The family names was picked up for a while and used for the Lachnella-like discos, but dropped for ascos when it was recognised that L. alboviolascens is a basidio. It was then used quite widely for the group containing these cyphelloid fungi. The family name was invalidly published by Boudier because it had a French ending. However Julich also included it in his treatment. He effectively validated the name which is really Lachnellaceae Boudier ex Julich. When synonymous names are published in the same work (all competing equally) then priority is fixed by the first subsequent published selection (11.5). I think there might be a case for the recognition of Lachnellaceae in that case - a far more appropriate family name for this group than either Cyphellopsidaceae or Niaceae.

Publicado por cooperj hace 5 meses (Marca)

Have all three been explicitly treated as a single taxon in some work? I agree that the concept used by many modern authors (including Nia, Cyphellopsis, and Lachnella) implies that they must be all synonyms. I haven't looked at Julich, but if he published the proper name, latin diagnosis, etc., then it should be validated. The question then seems to be whether anyone has explicitly selected one against the others. I can find a recent paper ( suggesting a preference of Niaceae over Lachnellaceae, but it seems to be based on the rejection of Boudier's invalid name, not a validated name by Julich, so I don't think that counts. Otherwise, I haven't yet found a paper including all three names and explicitly selecting one over the others (rather than just using one and not mentioning the others). I haven't yet found anything selecting even one explicitly over one of the others.
In the meantime, having them all in the same bin is useful. We had Cyphellopsis in Niaceae rather than Cyphellopsidaceae before the swap.

Publicado por jameskm hace 5 meses (Marca)

I doubt there is a paper that mentions all three. Especially Lachnellaceae as I doubt most people realize that Julich validated Boudier's name (if he did - which is perhaps questionable). Just wanted to capture the broader issues.

Publicado por cooperj hace 5 meses (Marca)

Agregar un comentario

Acceder o Crear una cuenta para agregar comentarios.