14-05-2024 09:19
Hans-Otto BaralHi, I want to announce for next Sunday 17.00 middl
13-05-2024 12:48
Eduard OsieckAfter eight years (*) I found the same apiosporous
11-05-2024 18:08
B Shelbourne• Mollisia on tree leaves: On dead Quercus leave
12-05-2024 11:48
Michel HairaudBonjour , Voici une récolte d'une Rhytismataceae
10-05-2024 17:40
Anna KlosGood afternoon, Thursday during an inventory we f
11-05-2024 00:33
Ethan CrensonI'm not entirely sure that Encoelia-like is the ri
07-05-2024 00:04
Ethan CrensonA friend found these black gelatnous cups on a twi
This is my last trial to find out how Ascophanus is today typified. I collected the literature up to 1972 where Pouzar & Svrcek replace the lectotype A. subfusca (first species rule) by A. granuliformis, because Boudier stresses the operculum in the protologue of Ascophanus (today the key character of Coprotus), whereas A. subfusca turned out to be inoperculate and to belong in Thelebolus.
Although IF follows Pouzar & Svrcek in giving A. granuliformis as type of Ascophanus, IF does not follow Pouzar & Svrcek in placing Coprotus as a synonym of Ascophanus.
Does anybody know more recent literature that explains why the name Coprotus is continued to be used instead of Ascophanus? I have no access to Brummelen 1994 (ed. Hawksworth, Ascomycete systematics), nor to Prokhorov Mikol. Fitopatol. 31: 27 (1997), both cited in the Dictionary of Fungi under Ascophanus.
Zotto
Saccardo (1884) cited A. cinereus for designating Ascophanus genus in a key, and Rifai (1968) considered this as a typification... Seaver was the first to select explicitly a type species: A. subfusca. This latter point of view was followed by Le Gal (1953), Kimbrough & Korf (1967) and Eckblad (1968). Clements & Shear (1931) selected A. carneus as type-species, and was followed by Korf (1958) and Brummelen (1967). Pouzar & Svrcek (1972) considering inappropriate the choice of A. subfusca decided to typify the genus Ascophanus with A. granuliformis
If we accept the lectotypifcation of Ascophanus with Peziza subfusca Crouan (which is the same species as Thelebolus microsporus), so the genus becomes a synonym of Thelebolus (not Coprotus). In the other hand, if we follow the reasoning of Pouzar & Svrcek, the genus Ascophanus could be kept and (all) the species of Coprotus should fall into Ascophanus...
The art. 10.5 of ICN indicates: "The author who first designates (art. 7.9 and 7.10) a type of a name of a genus [...] must be followed, but the choice must be superseded if (a) it can be shown that it is a serious conflict with the protologue [...]" So, in our case, as Boudier treats the genus Ascophanus with operculate asci, Pouzar & Svrcek have legitimately rejected the Seaver's choice!
In the other hand, the Czech authors rejected the lectotypification made by Clements & Shear only because they considered that verrucose spores are an "exception" in the genus Ascophanus (the diagnosis indicates: "... levi raro minitutissime punctato.")
In my opinion, this position is clearly questionable, because the art. 7.2 of ICN indicates: " [...] The nomenclatural type is not necessary the most typical or representative element of a taxon." So the choice made by Clements & Shear is acceptable under ICN rules. The consequence is that Ascophanus could be kept and replace the genus Iodophanus. Of course, this is just a first evaluation of this complex situation :-)
Je t'envoie, en privé, un scan d'une partie de l'article de Kimbrough et Korf (1967) A synopsis of the genera and species of the Tribe Thelebolaceae (=Pseudoascobolaeae) Amer.J. Bot. 54 (1) 9-23.
Amitiés
René
many thanks for this detailed survey! How do you do it so fastly?
I now got Prokhorov from Martin, but it is only floristical.
Also I discovered Brummelen 1994 among my reprints, and also Brummelen 1998 (Reconsideration within Thelobolaceae, Persoonia 16: 425), but both seem to mention Ascophanus not at all.
The lectotypification by A. carneus seems indeed acceptable, only I do not understand why Korf (in Kimbrough & Korf 1967) followed Pouzar's idea and therefore erected Iodophanus.
So we hope for René's offer to send this paper. Thanks!!
-----
Now I got it. So Korf places here Ascophanus in synonymy with Thelebolus by accepting the type A. subfusca (= Th. microsporus), but rejecting A. carneus (= Iodophanus carneus). Of course this was before Pouzar published there opinion. But I cannot find an explanation on these two pages for the reason to reject his earlier opinion.
Zotto
"Though many authors have accepted Ascophanus for A. carneus and its
allies, and have even indicated that A. carneus is the type species, the earliest known choice of a lectotype, even though it was a first-species choice under the American Code of Nomenclature, should not be overthrown unless one can prove
that the chosen species does not fit the generic protologue. It is clear that A. subfuscus fits Boudier's generic diagnosis and concept equally as well as does A. carneus."
Pouzar & Svrcek clearly indicated that subfusca does not fit the generic diagnosis.
Zotto