Flag for Taxon: Family Cortinariaceae
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| nschwab | Family Cortinariaceae |
inconsistent taxonomy |
Aug. 13, 2022 11:38:31 +0000 | Not Resolved |
Comments
I haven't formed an opinion on whether the split is good or not, but I would still definitely vote for the split to be implemented here.
(1) It's a split, so non-destructive, all genera can be lumped back into Cortinarius if necessary.
(2) Having the names here will help us learn the new genera, which is good for its own sake and to decide whether we like the split.
(3) The phylogeny in the paper is by far the best available (as far as I know), so we're going to want to identify those clades, regardless of the names. E.g., we're going to need to have a taxon for Thaxterogaster sensu Liimatainen & al., even if next year we want to treat it as a subgenus.
That's pretty good summary of what I'm currently thinking. At first I was thinking it would be difficult to implement because of missing combinations but that's not the case anymore. If other people can agree on this I would like to work on the implementation of this new classification. I propose to add all swaps under the Change group "Cortinarius Revision 2022" so it will be easier for revision.
I'll try to make a swap proposition like the one I've created for Entoloma s.l.
Split proposition:
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/114801
Looks great!
@leptonia This might also interest you.
I support it!
We recently published some species in the new genera and had quite a long prior discussion about adopting the new genera or not. Personally, I would have preferred a sub-generic classification. Whilst some of the new genera are morphologically recognizable, others are not. But finally, we essentially came to the same conclusions you have here. You will see I implemented the new genera on our NZBiota website.
@cooperj To me the main problem is indeed the fact that some genera are not distinctive enough. With the little hindsight we have it seems that these genera are slowly being adopted by more and more mycologists. Committing this change will probably also have influence them as many people use iNaturalist around the world.
P.S.: I just saw your recent paper and I needed it for some placements. I requested the article on ResearchGate so it would be nice if you provide it to me. Thanks in advance!
OK.
send me an iNat message with an email address
It's disappointing to see monophyletic genera get split up into lots of other smaller genera that are difficult to ID to genus. Hopefully someone recombines them all back into Cortinarius one day.
@alan_rockefeller Yes, I agree. And as @cooperj's study shows there are potentially other clades that doesn't fall into current genera circumscriptions and will need either new genera or going back to a monolithic Cortinarius genus. We have to hope that the sample bias is not too big to avoid the creation of many new genera and more taxonomic/nomenclatural cluttering...
Cool discussion! Curious, any target date for the transfer to finish? Until then, assuming we can add species to the old genera. Also heads up, I see a handful of Phlegmacium spp epithets got transferred without reverting to neuter, eg P. aleuriosmus (adj) should be P. aleuriosum. Majority look good though. 👍
Musing, a few amateur thoughts on splitting:
1) Hopefully the new genera reveal new morphological patterns (as happened with other splits) improving iNat overall.
2) Splitting will help distinguish many almost-identical specific names, (eg C. elegantior vs C. elatior). None of these violate the code's ban on "confusingly similar names" (53.3) but they were annoying. And frequent if 2100+ species are crammed together. To be fair many of these are just tongue-twisters in conversation.
3) Hopefully, future authors avoid identical specific epithets within Cortinariaceae - in the spirit of Article 53 - to ease any future intrafamilial moves.
4) Phlegmacium epithets going back to neuter will be a source of confusion for casual users (many are genitives etc and don't change), but iNat handles this better than printed matter at least.
Just finished updating the taxonomy of Telamonia, I will now work back on the split.
Asked Kare Liimatainen if his team had a infrageneric classification for me to work with. Here is his answer:
No, I don't have the list since the classification is still unclear in most cases, even on subgenera level. In general, with Fungi, we have just started to revise the classification based on DNA. It will take some time before one can have a good understanding of different levels of classification on fungi.
I would seem appropriate simply to include the recombined species under the new generic names initially, and then shift them into the lower classifications as they become clearer.
Yes, I think this is what I'm going to do. I didn't want to do that at first as it's heavier on iNaturalist's backend but I don't really have a choice.
Update: completed Calonarius
Awesome work Nicolas! 🙌 Poking around, a few potential tasks on Calonarius perhaps:
1) The type species for Calochroi seems missing from its subgenus, and AWOL from Calonarius too: C. flavipallens.
2) 10 taxa moved to Calonarius but still bear their prior names in iNat apparently:
Cortinarius arquatus, C. bergeronii, C. eufulmineus, C. guttatus, C. ionodactylus, C. magnivelatus, C. olivellus, C. ortegae, C. prodigiosus, C. subarquatus
3) C. callochrous [sic] still bears the original spelling in iNat, inconsistent with its new genus. Liimat. et al 2022 seem to advocate the alternative single L, viz. p108:
Calonarius subgenus Calochroi Niskanen & Liimat., subgen. nov.
Etymology: Named after C. calochrous, a species belonging to this subgenus.”
Reviewing prior discussions, both seem acceptable. So maybe ideally iNat would be consistent between Calochroi and C. calochrous... It would be confusing to have the subgenus conflict with its own namesake!
5) Weirdly, Liimat. et al 2022 did not actually place C. calochrous in subg. Calochroi on p129 - despite saying it belongs there on page 108. Typo??
6) The type species for Calonarius currently has zero observations - new to this, but just seemed unexpected: C. typicus 1433961.
1) This was corrected. I will place the species in the infrageneric classification later.
2) I checked all this species to see if a combination existed but unfortunately, they're still missing. They will be updated when they are published.
3) I used the combination they provided. This is also followed by Index Fungorum, even if I prefer the Calonarius calochrous spelling...
Calonarius callochrous (Pers.) Niskanen & Liimat., comb. nov.
IF554104
Basionym: Agaricus callochrous Pers., Syn. meth. fung. (Göttingen) 2: 282. 1801.
5) Actually, the combinations are in alphabetical order and don't have anything to do with their placement.
6) I'm not really surprised, this was published quite recently.
Aha, makes sense! Thanks Nicolas for taking time on this.
2) Got it, just noting Cortinarius arquatus + 9 are presently nested within Calonarius in iNat, but still bearing the "Cortinarius" name. Flagged here if that helps:
https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/641000
@profinite this is probably not by accident.
I expect these are species that were placed in Cortinarius section calochroi. That section is now under Calonarius and therefore cannot also exist independently in the iNat database under Cortinarius. i.e. we cannot simultaneously have Calonarius section calochroi and Cortinarius sectio calochroi because they represent the same taxon. At least some of the names you highlight have (had) their parent as Cortinarius section callochroi and so now have nowhere to go except under Calonarius. Sooner or later they will get accepted recombinations in Calonarius (or rejected on phylogenetic grounds), and will then be correctly placed.
It is an issues with the current iNat design that doesn't deal with these situations adequately.
Re the earlier debate. Shouldn't it be Cortinarius calochrous? Regardless of IF.
It is a sanction epithet.
https://www.fungaltaxonomy.org/nomenclator/basids-agaricus/
@cooperj As the consensus goes to Calonarius calochrous, I updated it. I'm not sure why they chose this orthography over the other one in the publication but anyways, even if they did I believe ICN allows for orthography corrections so it's not a problem.
Phlegmacium, Hygronarius and Thaxterogaster were added with some species in them but many genera from the recent split are missing. At the moment I don't see a consensus for this change so I don't find necessary to apply it on iNaturalist. It seems to be more and more widely adopted even though some authors don't like it.