Polyporus brumalis or P.ciliatus

marksteer
Frequent user
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu May 14, 2015 6:08 am
Location: Glamorgan VC41

Re: Polyporus brumalis or P.ciliatus

Post by marksteer » Fri Mar 11, 2016 2:54 pm

Flaxton wrote:Chris
If you tripped over a Hygrocybe calyptriformis (I know you wouldn't be actually looking for it) would you call it Porpolomopsis calyptriformis as per Wikipedia, Humidicutis calyptriformis as Species Fungorum, Hygrocybe calyptriformis var. calyptriformis from FRDBI, the Pink Waxcap from the published English Names or The Balerina? :? :? :?
Mal
PS or would you just stand on it and insist you didn't see it?
I much prefer 'The Ballerina'! This is one we find fairly frequently in VC41. Hygrocybe calyptripformis when we record. Still a fair amount of unimproved pasture in Wales.
Mark
'The more I know the more I realise I don't know'

User avatar
Chris Yeates
Frequent user
Posts: 722
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 7:01 pm
Location: Huddersfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Polyporus brumalis or P.ciliatus

Post by Chris Yeates » Fri Mar 11, 2016 4:28 pm

Flaxton wrote:Chris
If you tripped over a Hygrocybe calyptriformis (I know you wouldn't be actually looking for it) would you call it Porpolomopsis calyptriformis as per Wikipedia, Humidicutis calyptriformis as Species Fungorum, Hygrocybe calyptriformis var. calyptriformis from FRDBI, the Pink Waxcap from the published English Names or The Balerina? :? :? :?
Mal
PS or would you just stand on it and insist you didn't see it?
* I use a relational database for records, so the 'hook' for the species doesn't change - change the name to the preferred one in the Species file and all the records change along with it
* I might be looking for it - I did last year, and got some excellent images for the 'plate'
* I would not stand on it
* Never been a ballet fan - though I do like a good opera (Italian, sung in the original language for preference)
* I would call it "calyptriformis" when talking to fellow mycologists
* If publishing an article etc. I would try to work out the most convincing "current" name and use that, or let the editor use their preferred name
* I wouldn't worry too much about it - these things are inevitable; the problems arise when someone decides that what we have been calling "X. calyptriformis" is actually a complex of two or more taxa . . . .
Chris
"You must know it's right, the spore is on the wind tonight"
Steely Dan - "Rose Darling"

Flaxton
Frequent user
Posts: 326
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 2:13 pm

Re: Polyporus brumalis or P.ciliatus

Post by Flaxton » Fri Mar 11, 2016 4:58 pm

Chris Yeates wrote: * I use a relational database for records, so the 'hook' for the species doesn't change - change the name to the preferred one in the Species file and all the records change along with it
Chris
How on earth do you keep up with all the changes that are going on at the moment?
Mal

User avatar
Chris Yeates
Frequent user
Posts: 722
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 7:01 pm
Location: Huddersfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Polyporus brumalis or P.ciliatus

Post by Chris Yeates » Sat Mar 12, 2016 1:16 am

Flaxton wrote:
Chris Yeates wrote: * I use a relational database for records, so the 'hook' for the species doesn't change - change the name to the preferred one in the Species file and all the records change along with it
Chris
How on earth do you keep up with all the changes that are going on at the moment?
Mal
Hi Mal
By and large the reorganisation of fungal taxonomy should be viewed as helpful - even by us amateur field mycologists. A lot of it makes obvious sense - Coprinus comatus in the same genus as "Coprinus plicatilis"? or Collybia cookei in the same genus as "Collybia butyracea"? Even at the macroscopic level it makes sense . . .

The key thing is this situation shouldn't put people (especially those just dipping their toes into the wonderful, yet often confusing, world of mycology) off.

Identifying a fungus is not the same as naming it. Ideally one would compare ones finds with the type collection - this is what (one hopes) many of the "re-namers" are doing. Sadly type collections sometimes no longer exist (and the likes of us do not have access to them). I can think of numerous occasions in which I have collected what I am certain is the same fungus (identification) but have not (yet?) found a name for it - in some cases that fungus may well not yet have a name (be 'undescribed').

So one generally relies on descriptions and illustrations, and here an element of trust comes in. Often all one can say is "my fungus corresponds well with the description in <whatever> (identification), and so I am going to name it 'x' (naming)". Keeping vouchers of unusual finds should be encouraged - if you know that all the records of a particular fungus recorded by a particular collector are based on their understanding of a particular name, that can be extremely useful (even if that name was not correct in the first place - those records can be re-assigned).

So I would encourage people not to worry too much about " keep[ing] up with all the changes that are going on at the moment"; but if they think they have found something significant keep the specimen, and note down the resource(s) they used to name it.

I hope that makes some sort of sense . . .
Chris
"You must know it's right, the spore is on the wind tonight"
Steely Dan - "Rose Darling"

Flaxton
Frequent user
Posts: 326
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 2:13 pm

Re: Polyporus brumalis or P.ciliatus

Post by Flaxton » Sat Mar 12, 2016 7:29 am

Thanks Chris excellent aproach to an increasing problem.
Mal

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest