Accès membres

Mot de passe perdu? S'inscrire

20-06-2025 08:33

Josep Torres Josep Torres

Hello.Small, blackish, mucronated surface grains s

11-06-2025 16:26

Jason Karakehian Jason Karakehian

Hi everyone, I am looking for the following protol

18-06-2025 19:24

Bernard Declercq Bernard Declercq

Good evening,On Oenanthe aquatica we collected  a

17-06-2025 14:23

Josep Torres Josep Torres

Hello.A probable Hyaloscypha from last June 1st, s

18-06-2025 16:24

Andgelo Mombert Andgelo Mombert

Bonjour,Un minuscule stade imparfait, qui pousse s

13-06-2025 16:34

Andgelo Mombert Andgelo Mombert

Bonjour,Un petit discomycète qui me résiste. Il

17-06-2025 12:10

Castillo Joseba Castillo Joseba

Del pasado dia 4  en bosque de hayas, en tierraA

12-03-2025 17:54

Karl Soler Kinnerbäck

Hi all!Do you agree with Scutellinia hyperborea? P

17-06-2025 12:02

Castillo Joseba Castillo Joseba

Del pasado sabado, en bosque de hayas y avellanos,

« < 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.