Keine Chance für Nazi-Propaganda und Rassismus in diesem Forum! #noafd #nopegida

Lepista gilva = flaccida ?

Dieses Forum ist für Flechten- und Pilzfragen aller Art da.

Moderatoren: akw, Jule

Forumsregeln
1. Bildanhänge für Themen und neue Beiträge dürfen nicht größer als 800 x 600 sein, ansonsten funktioniert der Upload nicht!
2. Bitte zu jeder Anfrage einen Fundort (Land,Stadt, Umgebung, Habitat etc.) und Funddatum angeben

TIPP: Je mehr Detailbilder ihr von einer Pflanze zeigt, also zum Beispiel Gesamtaufnahme der Pflanze, Blatt + Blüte von oben und unten, Stängel unten + oben, Früchte oder weiteres, desto größer ist der Bestimmungserfolg und die Artansprache hier im Forum.
Weiterhin viel Spass im Forum :)
Antworten
BubikolRamios1
Beiträge: 1048
Registriert: 23.05.2016, 20:49

Lepista gilva = flaccida ?

Beitrag von BubikolRamios1 » 23.10.2020, 17:00

Distributed in semicircles under spruce trees. gilva namely should have pecks on top of cap. Are this specks on photo the ones ?
http://agrozoo.net/jsp/Galery_one_image ... c3201e4ad3

youngest specimen I could find:
http://agrozoo.net/jsp/Galery_one_image ... b29cef41e8
Zuletzt geändert von BubikolRamios1 am 24.10.2020, 05:48, insgesamt 1-mal geändert.

Benutzeravatar
abeja
Beiträge: 2875
Registriert: 23.01.2009, 19:04
Wohnort: da, wo D an CH und F grenzt

Re: Lpista gilva = flaccida ?

Beitrag von abeja » 23.10.2020, 21:04

Hi,
some authors (in the past?) say flaccida= gilva, because they found fruitbodies together (one mycel ?) mixed with "distinct droplike blotches" and paler colour and without those blotches and darker colour - they thought maybe depending on age of fruitbodies or weather conditions (hygrophanous).

But phylogenetic research says: two different species, very closely related
In Mycobank and Index fungorum 2 species, in "Pilze Deutschland" 2 species, in "Fungi of Temperate Europe" two species.

Since 2012 there are two new genera established: Paralepista (genetically different from Lepista), but this name is not yet used over all - and Paralepistopsis (for P. amoenolens and acromelalga, genetically different from Clitocybe)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paralepista_flaccida
See reference Nr. 6 (PDF) ("Paralepistopsis gen. nov. and Paralepista(Basidiomycota, Agaricales) Alfredo Vizzini* & Enrico Ercole)

In my opinion your mushrooms are Paralepista/Lepista flaccida - darker reddish colour of fruitbodies and some "spots" but not droplike blotches and no spots on the surface of the young fruitbody.
Viele Grüße von abeja

BubikolRamios1
Beiträge: 1048
Registriert: 23.05.2016, 20:49

Re: Lpista gilva = flaccida ?

Beitrag von BubikolRamios1 » 24.10.2020, 05:45

Found image on net that look like droplet type specks: http://agrozoo.net/jsp/Galery_one_image ... 572df480e0

http://www.speciesfungorum.org/Names/Sy ... dID=474840
Paralepista/Lepista gilva = flaccida
darker reddish colour
actually orange

Benutzeravatar
abeja
Beiträge: 2875
Registriert: 23.01.2009, 19:04
Wohnort: da, wo D an CH und F grenzt

Re: Lepista gilva = flaccida ?

Beitrag von abeja » 25.10.2020, 20:40

Hi,
the linked photograph looks like a very typical Paralepista gilva.

About the colours:
P. gilva is generally lighter, P. flaccida is darker than gilva - but there are a lot of pictures in the web, where I could not tell, what it is.

About the names:
in speciesfungorum:
"current name: Paralepista gilva (Pers.) Raithelh., Metrodiana 23(3): 117 (1996)" (L. flaccida var. gilva as a synonym)

in Mycobank:
"Paralepista gilva (Pers.) Raithelh., Metrodiana 23 (3): 117 (1996) [MB#474840] = invalid"
"Paralepista gilva (Pers.) Vizzini, Mycotaxon 120: 262 (2012) [MB#564349] = legitimate"
but
"current name: Lepista flaccida (Sowerby) Pat., Les Hyménomycètes d'Europe: 96 (1887) [MB#357467]"

This sounds like a contradiction, but it is often like this.

There is no uppermost institution which says, which name is the "true and only" one and it will stay like this for ever.
In these databases they document all the mycological names, but which is "current" there are often different opinions and still changes.
In Mycobank:
"Note that the taxonomic opinions listed here are not always up to date and may include errors."
There are only a few people involved in updating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MycoBank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Fungorum

One main issue is to help people, who describe new species, to check if the name was already used and to find out which name is correct in the sense of nomenclature rules.
The links should help to find original descriptions and further informations.

What is the "current" name in your region, in your country may be different from another country - some mycological institutions are reacting quicker than other to newest research, some are more conservative and waiting. Maybe there will be different research finding out something else. In the books names are printed and people are used to them and some have really difficulties to adopt to new names and to find the species in newer books. ("Fungi of Temperate Europe" is full of "new" names)

For example:
two years ago I found a rare mushroom (first registered sight in Baden-Württemberg), it is mapped now - and in "Pilze Deutschland" (and the underlying taxref list) it is "Porpoloma spinulosum".
In Index fungorum it is Porpoloma, in Mycobank it is (already) Pogonoloma spinulosum (in FoTE and Danish pages: Pogonoloma)

I asked for this. The answer was, that there will be a change maybe soon, depending on what species experts think. For another member of the DGfM-Forum, who is professionally involved (University mycologist), the Porpoloma-Pogonoloma-thing is already clear.

For me - I am just a "strolling-through-the-wood-and-stumbling-over-a-mushroom-mycologist" it doesn't really matter.
As far as I am involved - maybe mapping some of my rarer mushrooms - I have to take the names from "Pilze Deutschland"- taxref list.
Viele Grüße von abeja

Antworten