Macrolepiota question

[watsthat]

First I have a simple question; is Macrolepiota rhacodes var bohemica still called that or is it Chlorophyllum rhacodes var bohemica?

Secondly; can anyone tell me if C. rhacodes and the above are easily separable?

Cheers

Pete

[treecreeper]

I think the preferred name is Chlorophyllum brunneum.

It is easy to distinguish from Cholorophyllum rhacodes as it has much larger cap scales against a whitish background. The newish Collins guide has a photo of both.

[Ditiola]

Chlorophyllum rachodes has:
A distinctly double ring
Globose to sub globose cheilocystidia

Chlorophyllum bruneum has:
A thick but not distinctly double ring
Clavate cheilocystidia



Peter

[mollisia]

Hello,

I think I have heared that the nomenclature in this group was yet moving, what makes it complicate now:

Macrolepiota rhacodes var. rhacodes is now called Chlorophyllum olivieri.
Macrolepiota rhacodes var. hoertensis (= Chlorophyllum brunneum) is now called Chlorophyllum rhacodes (!!)

So, if this is settled, the definition of the taxon "rhacodes" has shifted from the former var. rhacodes to the former var. hortensis. Very bad, misunderstandings are to except .....

Ch. brunneum is distinguished macroscopically also by the bigger and thick-set fruitbodies and by the different arrangement of the scales on the cap.

In the book "Die Großpilze Baden-Württembergs, Band 4" I have threated Macrolepiota rhacodes, hortensis and venenata as varieties from one species, in regard to the point of view that German Krieglsteiner had about these taxa. My personal idea about those taxa is, that Macrolepiota rhacodes var. rhacodes and M. rhacodes var. hortensis are two separate taxa on species level. I never had problems to separate them, and there are at least three differences (cystidia, cuticule, ring, habitat). Macrolepiota venenata is much more difficult, and I see this taxon as a variety to var. hortensis - may be even less. Let's see what molecular data will tell one day ...

best regards,
Andreas

[watsthat]

Hello all

I am updating my identification notes. Has the Shaggy Parasol classification had any further developments? As far as I can ascertain we now have 3 similar Chlorophyllum species; C. olivieri, C. rhacodes and C. brunneum.

Should we now be looking for all 3 inc C. olivieri
Pete

[mollisia]

Originally Posted by watsthat

Hello all

I am updating my identification notes. Has the Shaggy Parasol classification had any further developments? As far as I can ascertain we now have 3 similar Chlorophyllum species; C. olivieri, C. rhacodes and C. brunneum.

Should we now be looking for all 3 inc C. olivieri
Pete

Hello Pete,

no, there are only two:
Ch. olivieri is the species hitherto known as Macrolepiota rhacodes
Ch. rhacodes (in the new sense!!) is the species hitherto known as Macrolepiota rhacodes var. hortensis (or var. bohemica).
Ch. brunneum is a synonym of Ch. rhacodes in the new sense (= Macrolepiota rhacodes var. hortensis).

best regards,
Andreas

[Chris Yeates]

Originally Posted by mollisia

Hello Pete,

no, there are only two:
Ch. olivieri is the species hitherto known as Macrolepiota rhacodes
Ch. rhacodes (in the new sense!!) is the species hitherto known as Macrolepiota rhacodes var. hortensis (or var. bohemica).
Ch. brunneum is a synonym of Ch. rhacodes in the new sense (= Macrolepiota rhacodes var. hortensis).

best regards,
Andreas

This underlines something very important to myself as a county fungus recorder; it is of great importance that one keeps a note of the fungus name used by a contributor of records - even if that is not the current name (it is better to use the term 'current name' rather than 'correct name' as taxonomy will, for a long time at least, be a fluid beast). It is also sometimes useful to know the identification guide the contributor was using.

In the 1950s, one of the key works available to field mycologists was Kühner and Romagnesi's Flora Analytique, those authors went out on a taxonomic limb (one is tempted to say in a typically French fashion) ignoring some of the International Rules. As a result one has to realise that (to pick one example) Mycena filopes and Mycena vitilis were transposed - so their 'Mycena filopes' was everyone else's 'Mycena vitilis' and you need to know which identification book people were using when attempting to dispose records from that era correctly.

A useful aspect of the admittedly not perfect FRDBI is that you can see the name originally used; I may be wrong but having looked at CATE it looks as though you are only allowed to put in a defined name in order to enter a record (as I say I may be wrong on that, but you can certainly only search the online database by using a single name); so if you want to search for Coprinus miser on FRDBI - using that name - it will point you at the current name: CATE doesn't, and if you don't know about Parasola misera you're stuck. This smacks of a centrally controlled 'correct' name only recording system.

cheers

Chris

[Ken Burgess]

Originally Posted by mollisia

I think I have heared that the nomenclature in this group was yet moving, what makes it complicate now:

Macrolepiota rhacodes var. rhacodes is now called Chlorophyllum olivieri.
Macrolepiota rhacodes var. hoertensis (= Chlorophyllum brunneum) is now called Chlorophyllum rhacodes (!!)

This is not in line with the information I have seen. Else Vellinga did some work on the DNA and confirmed 3 separate species in Europe: C. rhacodes, C. brunneum and C. olivieri. Vellinga published an article about this in Field Mycology (Volume 7, Issue 4, October 2006, Pages 136-140).

As far as I recall, Funga Nordica follows Else Vellinga's approach.

Further information about these three species can be found in the Basidiomycota Checklist.

Ken

[Chris Yeates]

Index Fungorum has:

Current Name:
Chlorophyllum olivieri (Barla) Vellinga, Mycotaxon 83: 416 (2002)

Synonymy:
Lepiota olivieri Barla, Bull. Soc. mycol. Fr. 2: 113 (1886)
Macrolepiota olivieri (Barla) Wasser, Flora Gribov Ukrainy, [Fungal Flora of the Ukraine. Basidiomycetes. Agaricaceae] (Kiev): 298 (1980)
Macrolepiota rhacodes f. olivieri (Barla) de Kok, in Kok & Vellinga, Persoonia 17(1): 74 (1998)
Macrolepiota rhacodes var. olivieri (Barla) Barla, Fl. mycol. ill. 17(1): 27 (1989)

so no synonymising with M. rhacodes sensu stricto



Chris

but this all underlines my comments above . . . .

[Michael Jordan]

so if you want to search for Coprinus miser on FRDBI - using that name - it will point you at the current name: CATE doesn't, and if you don't know about Parasola misera you're stuck. This smacks of a centrally controlled 'correct' name only recording system.

This is a tired, but rather too often promulgated chestnut! CATE has a small core of detractors for reasons best known to themselves and they are entitled to their views, but uninformed statements do not help anybody, and as we know, misinformation is one of the downsides of the Internet.

To correct Chris' example, if recorder using CATE2 enters Coprinus miser in the Synonym box of the online recording system, it delivers Parasola misera as the currently preferred name. CATE2 stores some 60,000+ taxon versions and these are now regularly updated to mirror the British Checklist.

What neither issue of CATE allows, rightly, is for a non currently-preferred taxon version to appear as the species name. This is also true for the FRDBI

For a long time, even on CATE1, recorders were being encouraged to enter the 'recorded as' name, and if Chris cares to check many of the records listed in CATE1 he will find the details in the Notes section. CATE1, incidentally, is shortly due to be permanently 'mothballed' when the final mapping module is transferred to CATE2. All access to the database will then be via the new URL.

In CATE2 the synonym is presented in a clearly defined field, and a quick glance even at the open public access screen reveals the third column complete with 'recorded as' names.

I would urge contributors to this excellent open forum to check their facts before making off-the-wall statements, no more so than when they carry important positions as county recorders.

MJ