Flag for Taxon: Subsection Nigricantinae
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| erlonbailey | nschwab | Subsection Nigricantinae |
Raise to sectional rank |
Jul. 16, 2023 13:22:44 +0000 | Not Resolved |
Comments
Probably both subsections nigricantinae and polyphyllinae need shifting up from subsection to section rank within subgenus compactae. A few papers use that classification and have them supported. Appropriate combinations at the rank of section do exist as far as I can see.
I tried my best looking for resources but I couldn't locate the publication where both these sections were published. I adopted the subsection level as it was mainly adopted by studies at this time. However, I agree with all what has been said.
Draft swaps here:
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/128230
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/128231
Now the question would be what name should be adopted for sect. Nigricantinae. I believe three names are competing:
Russula sect. [unranked?] Compactae Fr. 1838
Russula sect. Nigricantinae Melzer & Zvára 1928
Russula section Nigricantes ? [I couldn't locate the combination for the section level combination]
The only authorshiop I can find for Sect. Nigricantes is Bat. ex Konr. & Joss. but I haven't looked at the source.
Matching the current phylogenetics with a nomenclaturally correct/checked infra-generic classification isn't something I have studied in detail.
"..phylogenetic analyses were conducted to gain an insight into the genus Russula, and the results showed that sections Archaeinae, Nigricantinae and Plorantinae were well-supported"... https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/14/2/112
(2022)