18-11-2025 13:59
Nogueira HéctorNovember 14, 2025 Brazuelo (León) SPAIN Hymenosc
17-11-2025 19:14
herman lambertApothécie discoïde 0.6 cm diam., orangeFace hymÃ
17-11-2025 21:57
Philippe PELLICIERBonjour,Récolté sur bois de feuillu mort dur, no
16-11-2025 21:09
Robin Isaksson
Anyone recognize this acc. to pictures.? Found on
17-11-2025 21:46
Philippe PELLICIERBonjour,Récolté sur bois pourrissant de feuillu
14-11-2025 16:26
Marian Jagers
Hello everyone, On dead wood of Cytisus scoparius
15-11-2025 23:22
Mario FilippaHello,this is what I think to be Hymenoscyphus mac
15-11-2025 20:25
Riet van Oosten
Hello, Found by Laurens van der Linde, Nov. 2025
14-11-2025 18:31
Lothar Krieglsteiner
Hello,can somebody provide me with a file of:Rothe
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:Â
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.?Â
Sources online:
Boudier (1881):Â http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/8651#page/99/mode/1up
Gillet (1886):Â http://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/ing/Libro.php?Libro=3449&Pagina=207
Saccardo (1889):Â http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/102784#page/99/mode/1up
Boudier (1904-1910, description in Tome IV):Â 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
Â