04-11-2025 09:07
Hello.A suspected Hymenoscyphus sprouting on a thi
                                    04-11-2025 12:43
                Edvin Johannesen
                Hi! One more found on old Populus tremula log in O
                                    03-11-2025 21:34
                Edvin Johannesen
                These tiny (0.4-0.5 mm diam.), whitish, short-stip
                                    28-10-2025 15:37
Carl FarmerI'd be grateful for any suggestions for this strik
                                    03-11-2025 16:30
                Hans-Otto Baral
                Hello I want to ask you if you have found this ye
                                    28-10-2025 19:33
                Nicolas Suberbielle
                Bonjour à tous,Je voudrais votre avis sur cette r
                                    31-10-2025 09:19
                Lothar Krieglsteiner
                Can somebody provide me with a file of:Rogerson CT
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