14-07-2025 11:20
Michel Hairaud
Bonjour, Voici une espèce de (?) Hyaloscyphace
16-01-2023 21:31
Riet van Oosten
Hello, Nearby the find of Calycina claroflava on
14-07-2025 17:55
Yanick BOULANGERBonjourAutre dossier laissé en suspendJe viens de
14-07-2025 11:17
Yanick BOULANGERBonjourJ'ai un dossier Jackrogersella qui est rest
14-07-2025 15:52
Gernot FriebesHi,I wanted to share this collection on Rubus idae
14-07-2025 13:37
Gernot FriebesHi,do you think this collection could be R. ulmari
12-07-2025 16:45
Thierry Blondelle
Bonjour à tous,J'avais d'abord pensé à des stro
05-07-2025 12:38
Åge OterhalsI found this pyrenomycetous fungi in pine forest o
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