Flag for Taxon: Variety Nolanea edulis concentrica
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pinonbistro | alan_rockefeller | Variety Nolanea edulis concentrica |
should be Entoloma edulis var. concentrica |
Jun. 25, 2024 22:32:50 +0000 | cooperj |
no issues |
Comments
There is no published recombination of Nolanea edulis var concentrica as Entoloma edulis var. concentrica.
It cannot be changed until that combination (either at varietal or species rank) is validly/legitimately published.
I don't have access to all of the published material but assumed Reschke et al. 2022 had since the holotype of Nolanea edulis var. concentrica is part of the paper's phylogenetic analysis which shows that it is in the species complex with Entoloma vindobonense and is referred to as Entoloma edulis var. concentrica in the tree and throughout the paper.
It looks like the current name for Nolanea edulis is Entoloma edulis, Entoloma edulis (Peck) Noordel., Österreichische Zeitschrift für Pilzkunde 17: 105 (2008) [MB#538237] , so the varietal should be in Entoloma as well.
"referred to as Entoloma edulis var. concentrica in the tree and throughout the paper."
Are you referring to "Phylogeny, taxonomy, and character evolution in Entoloma subgenus Nolanea" https://doi.org/10.3767/persoonia.2022.49.04 ?
If so then it doesn't appear as Entoloma edulis var. concentrica in the tree or throughout the text. It appears as Nolanea edulis var. concentrica.
I am an author on that paper and quite aware of the content. Yes, we do say ... "The ITS sequence of the holotype of E. edulis var. concentrica differs in two nucleotides from sequences of E. vindobonense. No taxonomic decision is taken here, as material of this taxon was not analysed for this study". In that paragraph there is a small slip (I'd not noticed before) where E. edulis var. concentrica should have read N. edulis var. concentrica. That is the only occurrence, and it is an error. There is no combination in Entoloma and nothing registered in IndexFungorum or MycoBank.
Entoloma edulis is correctly in iNat. The varietal epithet cannot be moved to Enoloma, even as a infra-specific taxon of Entoloma edulis, without a published combination.
OK, thanks for the detailed explanation. I didn't realize that the varietal name isn't moved automatically. I don't question that that's the rule but it seems strange given that it is a variety of the same species.
You're right, I knew the paper referred to the holotype sequence as E. edulis var. concentrica but I should have refreshed my memory before saying Entoloma edulis var. concentrica was referenced in the tree and throughout the paper.
Under ICZN the epithets of names can be moved around. However, under ICN every name, at whatever rank, requires a formal publication and registration. A 'name' can be a uninomial, binomial, or trinomial, as is the case here, and all the elements are part of the same single name.
Out of curiosity and as a learning experience for me as an amateur, why didn't you publish the name in your paper when you realized it belonged in Entoloma and was possibly even the same as E. vindobonense?
we said "No taxonomic decision is taken here, as material of this taxon was not analyzed for this study." Shifting it to Entoloma may or may not be redundant depending on the verified relationship with authentic E. vindobonense
from Reschke et al. 2022:
"The ITS sequence of the holotype of E. edulis var. concentrica differs in two nucleotides from sequences of E. vindobonense.
No taxonomic decision is taken here, as material of this taxon was not analyzed for this study."