Fungi Books - A Question of Genera Order

[Lancashire Lad]

I'm asking this of the more learned members of the fungi forum.

Why, in books such as Phillips & Jordan, are the fungi Genera not listed in alphabetic order? What is the principle behind having Russulas before Mycenas, Mycenas before Entolomas, Entolomas before Boletus, etc. etc.

I can't see the logic, as, even though I'm using these books almost every day, many is the time that I still have to either flip through the book, or keep referring to the index to find the page number for the beginning of any given section.

Is it that alphabetic order is beyond the wit of the mycological author?, or am I missing something fundamental?

Regards,
Mike.

[Chris Yeates]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

I'm asking this of the more learned members of the fungi forum.

Why, in books such as Phillips & Jordan, are the fungi Genera not listed in alphabetic order? What is the principle behind having Russulas before Mycenas, Mycenas before Entolomas, Entolomas before Boletus, etc. etc.

I can't see the logic, as, even though I'm using these books almost every day, many is the time that I still have to either flip through the book, or keep referring to the index to find the page number for the beginning of any given section.

Is it that alphabetic order is beyond the wit of the mycological author?, or am I missing something fundamental?

Regards,
Mike.

Hi
I suspect that you are missing something fundamental . . .

think about it for a moment Mike . . . consider the boletes - if you found one would you rather get to a section where all the likely candidates were together or where you had to go to (and more importantly remember) to go to say A for Aureoboletus, B for Boletus, L for Leccinum, S for Suillus, X for Xerocomus

they are trying to inculcate an idea of genera that are related to other genera - Lactarius and Russula being another example

if you get a pink spore print wouldn't you prefer to have all the pink-spored species close together? remember the books that you refer to are basically (with respect - and I mean that, not like when a politician says it) picture books - they don't have keys, they don't have all the possible species within their covers, they are trying to point you towards a rough identification

if you know it's a Mycena then looking it up in an index is surely a small price to pay?

cheers

Chris

[Lancashire Lad]

Thanks for the reply Chris.

I agree with your comment that they are basically picture books, aimed primarily at the fungi novice.

I can understand the Boletes argument, and both books employ alphabetic order within their respective Bolete sections. (i.e Boletus before Leccinum, before Suillus).

I would agree that this is logical and should apply to similar Genera.

but I still consider that Boletes per-se, should be after Agarics, and before Russula/Lactarius.

All well and good if there were some overall logic, but if keeping similar species together is the idea, there is no constancy, as the mentioned books along with several other generalised "Picture Books" don't follow the same genera sequence.

Regards,
Mike.

[SheffieldLass]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

but I still consider that Boletes per-se, should be after Agarics, and before Russula/Lactarius.

.

Why? Agarics and Russula/Lactarius have gills, Boletes have pores ...

I think many/most do separate them into sections related to spore print colour. Which seems quite logical to me .

Melanie

[Chris Yeates]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

Thanks for the reply Chris.

I agree with your comment that they are basically picture books, aimed primarily at the fungi novice.

I can understand the Boletes argument, and both books employ alphabetic order within their respective Bolete sections. (i.e Boletus before Leccinum, before Suillus).

I would agree that this is logical and should apply to similar Genera.

but I still consider that Boletes per-se, should be after Agarics, and before Russula/Lactarius.

All well and good if there were some overall logic, but if keeping similar species together is the idea, there is no constancy, as the mentioned books along with several other generalised "Picture Books" don't follow the same genera sequence.

Regards,
Mike.

I'm more than a little teed off here as a long response has just been wiped by some cyber-gremlin and I think this is a bit of a no-brainer . . .

so instead of the several examples I have just lost consider these - the silver leaf fungus - a resupinate - Chondrostereum purpureum is now placed in the Agaricales so in the ideal book it should appear between Calocybe (St George's Mushroom) and Clitocybe and Collybia

the earthball genus Scleroderma and dry rot Serpula are now placed along with the boletes - is that where you would want them in a book? earthballs nowhere near puffballs of course - (Lycoperdon - as a member of the Agaricales - should go between Laccaria and Marasmius ?)

a book is by its nature linear - the natural world doesn't work like that, and fungal taxonomy is still in such a state of flux that consistency in authors' opinions is probably decades away . . .

can't believe I've spent so much time and energy on this one . . . .

Chris

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

I'm more than a little teed off here.....can't believe I've spent so much time and energy on this one . . . . Chris

Sorry Chris, didn't mean to get your heckles up, just thought it was a fair question to try to uncover the logic of why, since all these books have the genera prioritised differently, they are laid out in the manner they are.

I tried to clarify that I agreed with your initial response: - QUOTE "...consider the boletes - if you found one would you rather get to a section where all the likely candidates were together..."UNQUOTE. Which, for the most part they are, and I should have acknowledged that in my original post.
But within the constraints of macroscopically similar genera, (as you say, these are primarily picture books), and in the absence of any other apparent logic, I just thought there would be alphabetic order.

Anyway, I won't labout the point - You say this is a no brianer - In which case, I have no brain.

Regards,
Mike.

[Chris Yeates]

no worries Mike!
another problem can be name changes - imagine say a book of grasses arranged by scientific name rather than taxonomically . . .

at one point the large genus Bromus was split and two of the new genera were - wait for it! Anisantha and Zerna

C