a problem with Pyrenopeziza

[Chris Yeates]

I apologise to WABbers who might consider this post rather dry and technical, but in fact it might prove of general interest; its main theme comes under the “Why do the scientific names of fungi used in books keep changing?) heading; it may also help draw attention to a free resource which all who have access to the Internet can utilise.

In May last year while collecting in a nutrient-rich wet Typha swamp in a woodland clearing I found this fungus on dead stem bases of hogweed Heracleum sphondylium; using Ellis and Ellis the fungus matched Pyrenopeziza chailletii very well and was filed away as that.



When checking on the BMSFRD I was surprised to see that this name had been synonymised with Mollisia lychnidis and, therefore, all previous records have been re-disposed (and potentially 'lost') under that Latin name.
Without thinking about it too deeply I went to the Yorkshire records and changed the few of the Pyrenopeziza we have for the county to the Mollisia. Having second thoughts I decided to see if I could find out why the change had been made and who sanctioned it. A superb FREE resource for all mycologists is Index Fungorum: you can use it to search via either genus or species name, different colours of the names which appear indicate (to some degree) the status of the name as valid, uncertain or incorrect. You can also by a bit of clicking call up the original diagnosis of the species you’re after (OK so it’s in Latin but you can often work out a lot of that if you know a few mycological terms) this can be incredibly useful - most of us don’t have the numerous volumes of Saccardo’s Sylloge!

Index Fungorum is, however, a nomenclatural list - not a taxonomic one; it tends not to synonymise things in general. The situation is confused by the fact that Species Fungorum (CABI’s taxonomic opinion harvested from various sources) has been incorporated into Index Fungorum (note the logo!) . . . also note the change of colour from grey to green as you move from one dataset to the other. I won't complicate matters by bringing in Mycobank

Looking at IF the Pyrenopeziza has as its basionym - Peziza chailletii Pers. (most disco’s were called Peziza something at one time - in the same way most toadstools were put into Agaricus). In Saccardo's Sylloge Fungorum VIII Pyrenopeziza chailletii appears with Persoon’s original description extended, the original host was Angelica sylvestris (wild angelica) and a couple of other umbellifers are also mentioned as is - rather strangely - Gentiana lutea (large yellow gentian). The description goes on to talk of the fruit-bodies ‘Cupulae’ as ‘erumpentes initio’ - this erumpent character is key in the separation of Pyrenopeziza from Mollisia and other similar genera. The spores are given as 8 microns long.

Mollisia lychnidis (based on Micropeziza lychnidis (Fuckel) appears in yet another guise - as Niptera Lychnidis [sic] - in Sylloge Fungorum XXII is described as having been collected in King William Land (‘America arcticae’) in dead leaves of ‘Melandrii apetali’ i.e. nodding campion, Silene uralensis (Rupr.) Bocquet. The spores are given as 18 - 22 microns long.

Pyrenopeziza species in general are, as I understand it, limited to certain vascular plant genera or families, although there are some plurivorous ones (which perhaps await critical examination and splitting?). I’m confused as to how the synonymization has occurred and am concerned that earlier records of the Pyrenopeziza will disappear into those of the Mollisia (if a host is not mentioned then it will be difficult to re-dispose them if needed). In Ellis and Ellis the spores for P. chailletii are given as 17-21 microns long, which fitted my collection perfectly (though not the 8 microns cited above!) I await Mollisia's comments with interest . . .

There is also a Pyrenopeziza lychnidis (!) but that is a very distinctive fungus on dead campion stems, starting to approach Pirottaea I would say.

Key to all this, however, is the fact that P. chailletii is the type species for the large genus (around 300 names, with c. 60 current) Pyrenopeziza. If it is a Mollisia, then all sorts of nomenclatural (and taxonomic?) problems may ensue. Anyway, I have rambled on enough . . . . . over to the worryingly named Mollisia . . . . and, Andreas, if I have got my facts wrong in any of the above, please feel free to criticise!

best wishes

Chris

[flaxton]

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

I apologise to WABbers who might consider this post rather dry and technical, but in fact it might prove of general interest; its main theme comes under the “Why do the scientific names of fungi used in books keep changing?) heading; it may also help draw attention to a free resource which all who have access to the Internet can utilise.

In May last year while collecting in a nutrient-rich wet Typha swamp in a woodland clearing I found this fungus on dead stem bases of hogweed Heracleum sphondylium; using Ellis and Ellis the fungus matched Pyrenopeziza chailletii very well and was filed away as that.



When checking on the BMSFRD I was surprised to see that this name had been synonymised with Mollisia lychnidis and, therefore, all previous records have been re-disposed (and potentially 'lost') under that Latin name.
Without thinking about it too deeply I went to the Yorkshire records and changed the few of the Pyrenopeziza we have for the county to the Mollisia. Having second thoughts I decided to see if I could find out why the change had been made and who sanctioned it. A superb FREE resource for all mycologists is Index Fungorum: you can use it to search via either genus or species name, different colours of the names which appear indicate (to some degree) the status of the name as valid, uncertain or incorrect. You can also by a bit of clicking call up the original diagnosis of the species you’re after (OK so it’s in Latin but you can often work out a lot of that if you know a few mycological terms) this can be incredibly useful - most of us don’t have the numerous volumes of Saccardo’s Sylloge!

Index Fungorum is, however, a nomenclatural list - not a taxonomic one; it tends not to synonymise things in general. The situation is confused by the fact that Species Fungorum (CABI’s taxonomic opinion harvested from various sources) has been incorporated into Index Fungorum (note the logo!) . . . also note the change of colour from grey to green as you move from one dataset to the other. I won't complicate matters by bringing in Mycobank

Looking at IF the Pyrenopeziza has as its basionym - Peziza chailletii Pers. (most disco’s were called Peziza something at one time - in the same way most toadstools were put into Agaricus). In Saccardo's Sylloge Fungorum VIII Pyrenopeziza chailletii appears with Persoon’s original description extended, the original host was Angelica sylvestris (wild angelica) and a couple of other umbellifers are also mentioned as is - rather strangely - Gentiana lutea (large yellow gentian). The description goes on to talk of the fruit-bodies ‘Cupulae’ as ‘erumpentes initio’ - this erumpent character is key in the separation of Pyrenopeziza from Mollisia and other similar genera. The spores are given as 8 microns long.

Mollisia lychnidis (based on Micropeziza lychnidis (Fuckel) appears in yet another guise - as Niptera Lychnidis [sic] - in Sylloge Fungorum XXII is described as having been collected in King William Land (‘America arcticae’) in dead leaves of ‘Melandrii apetali’ i.e. nodding campion, Silene uralensis (Rupr.) Bocquet. The spores are given as 18 - 22 microns long.

Pyrenopeziza species in general are, as I understand it, limited to certain vascular plant genera or families, although there are some plurivorous ones (which perhaps await critical examination and splitting?). I’m confused as to how the synonymization has occurred and am concerned that earlier records of the Pyrenopeziza will disappear into those of the Mollisia (if a host is not mentioned then it will be difficult to re-dispose them if needed). In Ellis and Ellis the spores for P. chailletii are given as 17-21 microns long, which fitted my collection perfectly (though not the 8 microns cited above!) I await Mollisia's comments with interest . . .

There is also a Pyrenopeziza lychnidis (!) but that is a very distinctive fungus on dead campion stems, starting to approach Pirottaea I would say.

Key to all this, however, is the fact that P. chailletii is the type species for the large genus (around 300 names, with c. 60 current) Pyrenopeziza. If it is a Mollisia, then all sorts of nomenclatural (and taxonomic?) problems may ensue. Anyway, I have rambled on enough . . . . . over to the worryingly named Mollisia . . . . and, Andreas, if I have got my facts wrong in any of the above, please feel free to criticise!

best wishes

Chris

Thanks for that Chris. I will need to read that again (and possibly again) but for those who want to take their interest further very interesting.

Mal

[Chris Yeates]

hey Mal

quoting all of it perhaps a tad unkind?

I only hope I haven't scared Andreas off

cheers

Chris

[mollisia]

Dear Chris,

the problem of Pyrenopeziza chailletii is a very interesting one and quite complicated. Above that, it affects a great number of species.
We have to deal here with a nomenclatorical problem as well as with a taxonomical one.

And it may well serve as an example, that name changes can sometimes be avoided, but that to avoid this makes much more work then doing other way.

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

In May last year while collecting in a nutrient-rich wet Typha swamp in a woodland clearing I found this fungus on dead stem bases of hogweed Heracleum sphondylium; using Ellis and Ellis the fungus matched Pyrenopeziza chailletii very well and was filed away as that.

Be careful, there is more around. I have described a new speices two or three years ago, whch always was taken for P. chailletii before. It only lives on old petioles of Petasites and has got the name Pyrenopeziza baraliana. But the species on Heracleum should well be P. chailletii.

When checking on the BMSFRD I was surprised to see that this name had been synonymised with Mollisia lychnidis and, therefore, all previous records have been re-disposed (and potentially 'lost') under that Latin name.

I have to admit, that I didn't came across the combination of lychnidis with Mollisia yet. I is important to give the authors name please. There is a Micropeziza lychnidis Fuckel in the IF, but I found no trace of where this should have been be published. At least it is not in the Symbolae mycologicae and supplements, which I have just checked.
Judging from the descriptions of Pyrenopeziza lychnidis, which base on Peziza sphaeroides var. lychnidis Fries, it is very unlikely that it is conspecific with P. chailletii. The spores are broader and so are the asci. Also the marginal hairs seem to be more prominent.
And it is very unlikely to me, that this should be a Mollisia. All Mollisia which cause leave spots hitherto known to me have turned out to belong to other genera, often to Micropeziza.
But I have not seen a type of this and it is still unclear, whether there are two different lychnidis, one by Fuckel and one by Fries. But again, it is very unlikely, that one of these two(?) species is a true Mollisia in my sense at least.

A superb FREE resource for all mycologists is Index Fungorum: you can use it to search via either genus or species name, different colours of the names which appear indicate (to some degree) the status of the name as valid, uncertain or incorrect. [...] Index Fungorum is, however, a nomenclatural list - not a taxonomic one; it tends not to synonymise things in general. The situation is confused by the fact that Species Fungorum (CABI’s taxonomic opinion harvested from various sources) has been incorporated into Index Fungorum (note the logo!) . . . also note the change of colour from grey to green as you move from one dataset to the other.

Index fungorum is indeed a marvellous source of information, but you always should cross check the references you get. There are many mistakes in it. That shall not harm the great effort Paul Kirk and his (small) staff does, but it is not the bible.

Looking at IF the Pyrenopeziza has as its basionym - Peziza chailletii Pers. [/u].

yes, the basionym for Pyrenopeziza chailletii is Peziza chailletii Persoon, and therefor it must read Pyrenopeziza chailletii (Persoon) Fuckel. Fuckel also has explicitely cited the original source Persoon and he also made a "+" behind the name Pyrenopeziza chailletii, which is a sign for a new combination in this work. So it is unmistakbly clear that Fuckel did not create a new species, but made a combination into his new erected genus Pyrenopeziza.
This fact will be important later on.

Mollisia lychnidis (based on Micropeziza lychnidis (Fuckel) appears in yet another guise - as Niptera Lychnidis [sic] - in Sylloge Fungorum XXII is described as having been collected in King William Land (‘America arcticae’) in dead leaves of ‘Melandrii apetali’ i.e. nodding campion, Silene uralensis (Rupr.) Bocquet. The spores are given as 18 - 22 microns long.

Yes, that's about what Hütters gives in his monograph of Pyrenopeziza for Pyrenopeziza lychnidis, basing on Peziza sphaeroides var. lychnidis Desmazières. Desmazières as author of the combination is an error of Hütter, Fries was earlier and has priority.

Pyrenopeziza species in general are, as I understand it, limited to certain vascular plant genera or families, although there are some plurivorous ones (which perhaps await critical examination and splitting?).

In general may be, but the most common species is quite plurivorous: Pyrenopeziza escharodes. I have the strong feeling, that this is Mollisia atrata in the sense of most authors. Nannfeldt has splitt up this Mollisia atrata, but I have not succeeded in following his differences between these species. But I have not tried too sincerely, as they are no Mollisias anyway.
I thought for long time, that Pyrenopeziza is restricted to herbs only, but it has been found that Pyrenopeziza aquosa is a true Pyrenopeziza and lives on wood and bark, and I had a undefined species from a finnish herbarium, which very probably is also a true Pyrenopeziza and which was growing on an old polypore. Also there might be species occuring on grasses (Carex).

But the delimitation of the genus needs urgently molecular help, as there are many different approaches to draw its limits and none works really. So be aware of the fact, that not all what todays is called Pyrenopeziza is a Pyrenopeziza and not all what is called mollisia is a Mollisia. A great part of the species have been in both genera in the meantime. E.g. in GenBank exists a sequence of Pyrenopeziza revincta, which is a 100% true and sure Mollisia. So working with those sequences, where you never know who determined the species is a very dangerous thing and I have already seen some funny results being published in very honourable journals by very honourable mycologists ....

I’m confused as to how the synonymization has occurred and am concerned that earlier records of the Pyrenopeziza will disappear into those of the Mollisia (if a host is not mentioned then it will be difficult to re-dispose them if needed).

So am I, indeed!

In Ellis and Ellis the spores for P. chailletii are given as 17-21 microns long, which fitted my collection perfectly (though not the 8 microns cited above!)

This strange discreapances in the spore size between Fuckels description and the nowadays concept is solved when reading what Rehm wrote about Pyrenopeziza chailletii. He was the first to notice, that in his specimen of Fungi rhenani (which is an isotype) the spores are much bigger than given by Fuckel. He concluded, that that must have been an error of Fuckel and since that time, Pyrenopeziza chailletii has been interpreted as the big spored species.
This is the taxonomical part of the chailletii problem.

There is also a Pyrenopeziza lychnidis (!) but that is a very distinctive fungus on dead campion stems, starting to approach Pirottaea I would say.

Yes, that's the one I got trace of.

Key to all this, however, is the fact that P. chailletii is the type species for the large genus (around 300 names, with c. 60 current) Pyrenopeziza. If it is a Mollisia, then all sorts of nomenclatural (and taxonomic?) problems may ensue.

I don't think that Mollisia is the problem for Pyrenopeziza.
The real problem at first is the fact, that the types species, Pyrenopeziza chailletii, is based on Peziza chailletii Persoon, and that this is what is today called Heterosphaeria alpestris, a close relativ to Heterosphaeria patella! So as Heterosphaeria is much older then Pyrenopeziza, Pyrenopeziza is a nomenclatural synonym of Heterosphaeria!
This would also lead to the fact, that at the moment no genus for all the Pyrenopezizas in the sense of Fuckel exists. It would be easy to erect a new genus and to combine all the Pyreopezizas know into it.
I would like to try another way first, and that is a proposal to conderve the genus Pyrenopeziza with a new type species. To write such a proposal is not that easy and I'm glad to have Dick Korf at my side. It is a lot of work which results at the best in - nothing. When nothing changes, the work was well done. So you can spend much time in having nothing from it, no wonder that many do it other way and make a new genus and new combinations in such cases.
If someone wants to look at the provisional state of this propsal, I have loaded on my website in a WORD document. But it is not ready yet for publication and it is also copyrighted by me and not to distribute yet.
http://www.mollisia.de/Pyrenopeziza-conservation.doc

So this was the nomenclatoral problem about the genus itself. Now we come to the taxonomical problem of Peziza chailletii.

Peziza chailletii Persoon is Heterosphaeria alpestris. O.k.
But what is Pyrenopeziza chailletii (Persoon) Fuckel? I told already, that there is no chance to see Fuckels description as a spec. nov., it can only interpreted as comb. nov.. So the name chailletii in Pyrenopeziza is in all cases bound to the type of Peziza chailletii and is therefore not available in Pyrenopeziza in our nowadays sense (which we wish to conserve). So Fuckels species chailletii deserves a new name. But what is Fuckels chailletii? The one which has spores 8 µm long, as Fuckel writes in his Symbolae, or the one which he has distributed in the fungi rhenani which has large spores?

From my field experience I know, that on umbelliferous stems a very common Pyrenopeziza occures, which has spores appr. 7-10 µm long. This is what FoS calls Pyrenopeziza escharodes. I think that Mollisia atrata might be the same. It is a very badly defined species which either is very variable (especially in the colour and legnth of marginal cells) or a complex of very similar species. On the other hand, you can find on the same host the big spores chailletii in our nowadays sense. And I have had it two times now, that both occured on the same piece of umbelliferous stem! So who gives the guarantie, that ALL fungi rhenani distributed contain only the big spored chailletii? May be some contain the small spored? I would not agree with Rehm, that Fuckel made a mistake here in his description, but that the material distributed in fungi rhenani is a mixture (or may be only big spored are distributed erroneousely without knowing).
Be it as it is, the chailletii in our todays sense needs another name, there is no way around that. May be this can be found in an synonymous name, may be it has to be described completely new. I have not searched for that up to now, but I think the new name will be the choice.

And to finish all that a short remark to Heterosphaeria, because this genus is affected still by the chailletii problem. As far as I see, Leuchtmann in his monograph, where he examined the type of Peziza chailletii and found it to be a Heterosphaeria, should not have named the types species Heterosphaeria alpestris, but Heterosphaeria chailletii ....

So enough for a good night lecture and congratulations to all having come down to here and reading it all!

best regards,
Andreas

[NickCantle]

You two just blow me away;

Now that is real mycology.

[FungiJohn]

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

hey Mal

quoting all of it perhaps a tad unkind?

I only hope I haven't scared Andreas off

cheers

Chris

Somehow I don't think you did Chris I'll read it all again tomorrow

John

PS It does come together if you read it slowly

[FungiJohn]

Originally Posted by NickCantle

You two just blow me away;

Now that is real mycology.

Don't worry Nick, I thought I was in the fungi forum too

John

[mollisia]

Hi Nick,

Originally Posted by NickCantle

You two just blow me away;

Now that is real mycology.

I'm not sure about that. For me real mycology is working with real fungi. Solving nomenclatural problems is a thing like being a lawyer. You have to know the rules and how to work with them. You don't need to know the fungus you are talking about. Solving taxonomical problems is of cours another thing, there you need to know the species you are dealing with.

I understand all who say that spending so many hours with such a dry problem is a waste of time. One could have made so many excursions instead and find real fungi and determine them. But I think that both is necessary. The ones who have the field experience and the ones who have the "theoretical" experience should for the best work together. But I don't think I should go further, as this seems a kind of wasp nest here ...

best regards,
Andreas

[flaxton]

Having read that anyone else feel like winding down with a gentle discussion on Quantum Physics

Mal

[diggleken]

You can see why I just observe, forage , photograph , then put on a thread for ID for you lot to help!
One day . . . . . . . . .
Phew, Chris, double phew Andreas!
Ken