for those who haven't had access to
Field Mycology Vol 9 (4) I have managed to capture the editorial below - although now formatted differently from the original
please note this is copyright material repeated here purely for interest and should not go further!
Sutara's paper in
Czech Mycology (full reference below) makes interesting reading and his argument for raising
Xerocomellus as a valid genus seems cogent.
EDITORIAL
Science doesn't stand still. No sooner do you think something has been settled than new research or new a publication throws a different light onto the subject concerned. This was amply demonstrated to me soon after my last editorial appeared in Issue 9(3). In that issue I talked at length of the problems surrounding the use of the name
Xerocomus communis for the common bolete with carrot-orange flesh in its stipe base. Few mycologists were happy with the use of the name '
communis' for the reasons stated — all we had was a colour plate showing a mixture of taxa and without the key character of orange flesh.
In their book on
Xerocomus and other bolete genera H. Engel et al. (1996) presented wonderful photographs and a full description of our by now familiar taxon under the provisional name
X. quercinus, but sadly never formally published the name (which would have solved the problem there and then). So that is another name we cannot use.
I also discussed in the previous issue the arguments for using the name '
declivitatum'. Originally published as a variety of
Boletus subtomentosus it was raised to species status by Roy Watling in 2005. It was transferred to
Xerocomus by W. Klofac in 2007. Problem solved we thought (if not agreed on by everyone...) and there the matter might have stood. But we have just seen Sutara (2008), a wonderful paper examining
Xerocomus as a whole and its relationship to other boletes. Sutara splits
Xerocomus into two separate genera:
Xerocomus and a new genus
Xerocomellus. Into the latter genus he places the familiar species
X. chrysenteron and its close relatives including
X. declivitatum. However he does not use either the name
declivitatum or
communis but instead a species name I had never heard of -
Boletus engelii Hlavacek! Sutara also takes the opportunity to transfer this species to his new genus
Xerocomellus.
So now which name should we use? Placing the various names into date order reveals the 'winner':
Boletus communis Bull. 1789
B. subtomentosus ssp. declivitatum C. Martin 1904
Xerocomus communis (Bull.) Bon 1985 ("1984")
X. quercinus Engel & Bruckner nom.prov. 1996
Boletus engelii Hlavacek 2001.
Boletus declivitatum (C. Martin) Watling 2005
Xerocomellus engelii (Hlavacek) Sutara 2008
So — '
communis' can not be used and
X. quercinus is invalid since it was never formally published, which left (we thought) '
declivitatum'. But that was not raised to species level until 2005, while Hlavacek's new species (describing the same orange-fleshed species and based on the unpubxelished name of
X. quercinus Engel after whom it is named) was published four years earlier. So, by the rules of nomenclature, the first published description of this taxon at species level is
Boletus engelii Hlavacek 2001 and this wins the day.
If we accept Sutara's genus
Xerocomellus (there is good morphological and DNA-based research to support this) then his new combination of Xerocomellus engelii (Hlavacek) Sutara 2008 is what we should use—phew!
My thanks to Alan Hills for bringing the Sutara paper to my attention; both Alan and I are now happy and in agreement that the best solution has been found.
Hopefully this will be the last time I have to discuss this problem in this column...
References
Engel, H., Dermek, A., Klofac, W. Ludwig, E., (Briikner,T.). (1996).
Schmier- und Filzrohrlinge s.l. in Europa.
Hlavacek, J. (2001). Prehled nasich hub hribotvarych (Boletales) 49.
Mykologicky Sbornik 78(2): 65-71.
Sutara, J. (2008). Xerocomus s.l. in the light of the present state of knowledge.
Czech My col. 60(1): 29-62.
Geoffrey Kibby
Chris
Linear Mode
