15-12-2025 15:48
Danny Newman
Melanospora cf. lagenaria on old, rotting, fallen
15-12-2025 15:54
Johan Boonefaes
Unknown anamorph found on the ground in coastal sa
15-12-2025 21:11
Hardware Tony
Small clavate hairs, negative croziers and IKI bb
15-12-2025 07:09
Danny Newman
indet. Rutstroemiaceae sp. on unk. fallen leavesMc
15-12-2025 07:05
Danny Newman
Pseudosclerococcum golindoi (det: Zotto)near Cosb
15-12-2025 11:49
Danny Newman
ITS sequences from the following two collections B
15-12-2025 12:34
Danny Newman
indet. Rhytismataceae on oak leafnear Purchase Roa
09-12-2025 12:06
Andgelo Mombert
Bonjour,Je recherche l'article concernant Hypobryo
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