29-05-2026 15:35
daniel FERREBonjour à tous,Je voudrais votre aide pour cette
28-05-2026 16:15
James MitchellHello,Does anyone have the original publication of
28-05-2026 11:06
Thomas Læssøehttps://svampe.databasen.org/observations/10596750
23-05-2026 11:44
Charles Grapinet
Hello, I am having trouble identifying this copro
25-05-2026 16:44
François BartholomeeusenHi forum members,During an excursion organised by
26-05-2026 21:25
Dirk GerstnerHello everyone, I'm completely stumped by this li
26-05-2026 22:44
Ethan CrensonHi all, I think I have Incrucipulum capitatum her
22-05-2026 14:44
Lothar Krieglsteiner
in unripe condition citrine yellow, then soon fadi
25-05-2026 16:35
Bernard CLESSE
Bonjour à toutes et tous,J'ai trouvé récemment,
22-05-2026 13:29
Gernot FriebesHi,I am curious to hear your opinion on this mater
Hymenoscyphus phascoides
Javier Ormad,
10-02-2012 21:44
Hi all.I have a collection of Hymenoscyphus phascoides, but seeing IF, scoring as Hymenoscyphus phascoides (Fr.) Spooner anon., (2012), without having proof of publication...
Which is the valid name in the updated?
Thank you
Javier
Martin Bemmann,
10-02-2012 22:13
Re : Hymenoscyphus phascoides
Hi Javier,
maybe you did not try Mycobank. H.ph. is given there as a legitimate name and it provides at least the Latin diagnosis. But still not solving the quest of the source... :-( Maybe an entry too recent (2012).
Cheers
Martin
maybe you did not try Mycobank. H.ph. is given there as a legitimate name and it provides at least the Latin diagnosis. But still not solving the quest of the source... :-( Maybe an entry too recent (2012).
Cheers
Martin
Hans-Otto Baral,
10-02-2012 22:29
Re : Hymenoscyphus phascoides
I think the combination does not yet validly exist. In the web it is attributed to Fries, but I never heard of a combination in that genus made by Fries.
I think the fungus is better placed in Bryoscyphus, and I wonder why Brian did not suggest this. Though Bryoscyphus is not easily defined and delimited except for its bryophily.
Zotto
I think the fungus is better placed in Bryoscyphus, and I wonder why Brian did not suggest this. Though Bryoscyphus is not easily defined and delimited except for its bryophily.
Zotto
Martin Bemmann,
10-02-2012 22:42
Re : Hymenoscyphus phascoides
just an addition:
The diagnosis given at Mycobank turnes out to be nothing but the description of Fries for his Peziza phascoides on Phascum moss, placed by him in his section Mollisia.
The diagnosis given at Mycobank turnes out to be nothing but the description of Fries for his Peziza phascoides on Phascum moss, placed by him in his section Mollisia.
Javier Ormad,
10-02-2012 23:17
Re : Hymenoscyphus phascoides
Me also I think it best to place it in Bryoscyphus, it has not yet happened. I wonder about the validity of the name of IF.
If there is determination and it is valid.
Who makes the publication of 2012?
Who makes this Latin diagnosis?
I do not understand
If there is determination and it is valid.
Who makes the publication of 2012?
Who makes this Latin diagnosis?
I do not understand
Martin Bemmann,
10-02-2012 23:34
Re : Hymenoscyphus phascoides
Hi Javier,
as I said the Latin "diagnosis" is just the description of Peziza phascoides given by Fries in his Systema Mycologicum 2 (1822): 138 f.
Regards,
Martin
as I said the Latin "diagnosis" is just the description of Peziza phascoides given by Fries in his Systema Mycologicum 2 (1822): 138 f.
Regards,
Martin