Accès membres

Mot de passe perdu? S'inscrire

06-08-2025 08:56

Antonio Ezquerro Antoñana Antonio Ezquerro Antoñana

Hola a todos, Me gustaría saber qué opinan sobre

12-02-2012 11:31

Hans-Otto Baral Hans-Otto Baral

Hi allI am quite sure that nobody has a pdf of thi

02-08-2025 12:35

éric ROMERO éric ROMERO

Bonjour tous, J'ai trouvé sur pétiole de Fraxin

02-08-2025 17:21

Andgelo Mombert Andgelo Mombert

Bonjour,Je recherche la description et la planche

30-07-2025 20:52

Bohan Jia

Hi together,  I've been looking posts in AscoFra

30-07-2025 10:12

Bernard CLESSE Bernard CLESSE

Bonjour à toutes et tous,Pourriez-vous m'aider à

31-07-2025 16:32

Andreas Gminder Andreas Gminder

Dear collegues,today I found on a very fresh fire

30-07-2025 18:06

Stefan Jakobsson

On a decorticated twig of Alnus incana on moist so

29-07-2025 18:59

Castillo Joseba Castillo Joseba

Me mandan el  material seco de Galicia, España,

28-07-2025 12:34

Enrique Rubio Enrique Rubio

Hi to everybody.I would appreciate any ideas about

« < 1 2 3 4 5 > »
Aleuria bicucullata - nomenclatural question
Viktorie Halasu, 09-03-2017 22:23
Viktorie HalasuHello 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

Nicolas VAN VOOREN, 09-03-2017 23:10
Nicolas VAN VOOREN
Re : Aleuria bicucullata - nomenclatural question
Hi 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
Viktorie Halasu, 09-03-2017 23:12
Viktorie Halasu
Re : Aleuria bicucullata - nomenclatural question
Hello Nicolas,
thank you very much. But what about the other name he published in Icones?
Viktorie
 
Nicolas VAN VOOREN, 09-03-2017 23:17
Nicolas VAN VOOREN
Re : Aleuria bicucullata - nomenclatural question
You can consider it as an illegitimate combination.