Flag for Taxon: Banning's slender caesar (Amanita banningiana)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cooperj | alfanova | Banning's slender caesar (Amanita banningiana) |
unpublished name |
Dec. 27, 2021 04:35:15 +0000 | bouteloua |
committed taxon change |
Comments
No. There are quite a few of these unpublished names from ...
http://amanitaceae.org/
Most probably won't get published in the near future.
Just for the record.
I have my own list of 1,500 unpublished tag names for undescribed New Zealand fungi that would change thousands of iNat genus-level identifications to species. They are tag names that appear in our national lists, are used in the national collection, and used for threat evaluation, but I won't add them as I think it inappropriate within iNat. So I find these web-based Amanita names a bit irksome.
thanks - does this look accurate? https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/103169
yes
I think provisional names are useful at least to be able to locate and research a recognizable fungus. I wish there was some way in the inat system that we could track them by some type of name even though it was not published yet.
I would bet at least 1 in 10 names on here are incorrect because there are often several taxa many of which are undescribed all going by that name,
Within the Australasia herbaria/fungaria we have a standard for creating taxon labels for unpublished taxon concepts. They are deliberately constructed so they can't be mistaken for scientific names (unlike these Amanita names).
https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/Terms_Used_in_Bionomenclature/Qky7_6-UcQQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=phrase+names+plants+chah&pg=PA197&printsec=frontcover
Used in his way - as a community-wide agreed standard that is tightly defined - then they are very useful, easily recognised and managed. Without those constraints then I think it has the potential to become a 'free for all' resulting in ambiguity an confusion. Phrase/tag names can (and are) used within iNat in observer fields - but that isn't very practical for applying them or searching for them. That is the only current solution we have within iNat - and it is a solution I personally don't use because it takes too much effort. In my opinion pseudo-scientific names, that look like they should be published, but aren't, should not be allowed.
It looks like this has been a provisional name for 12 years. I'm not seeing anything in Index Fungorum. Does anyone know if it's actually been published yet, possibly under a different name?