Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
jameskm | field mushrooms and allies (Family Agaricaceae) |
I notice that Agaric.us splits this family possibly into five, of which we recognize two. Is it worth lumping Lycoperdaceae, or splitting our concept of Agaricaceae? |
Jan. 15, 2021 00:34:28 +0000 | rfoster |
split |
Ah, I see the argument against lumping Lycoperdaceae is here: https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/510127
On Mushroom Observer, I'm inclined to treat all 5 as separate, accepted families, and additionally use "Agaricaceae sensu lato" when it's not clear which family it would belong to. I would recommend that for iNat, but I don't see "sensu lato" names here, or "nom. inval." ones (indicating that seems desirable for "Lepiotaceae").
Another option would be to split off Lycoperdaceae (and Tulostomataceae/Battarraceae and/or Coprinaceae, if you want) and just accept "Agaricaceae" as quite possibly polyphyletic...
I would support following Agaric.us for the agaricaceae sensu stricto
iNat cannot implement a separate senu lato. It has a more tightly defined/nomenclaturally correct hierarchy (except 'species complex') than MO. Agaricaeae sensu lato would be within the sub-order Agaricineae. These suborders are very useful divisions within the agaricales and people should get used to using them.
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/87855 I sorted out the genera and am ready to commit the split.
@pulk @cooperj