Important fungi name changes

[David Humphries]

Personally I think its a case of horses for courses.

 

 

Mrs Miggins will perhaps only really want to know its a 'fungus' that's affecting her scabby tree as to why it needs to come down..

 

Arbs working for Mrs Migginns (although rightly in need of on going CPD) will possibly only need to know it as 'honey fungus' for that interaction.

 

Arbs/Consultants and TO's writing and reading reports might need to know that its Armillaria species, possibly a specific species.

 

Any intereaction with the Mycological faculty will want to see up to date nomonclature used.

 

 

I think clear communication to the needs of the person you're interacting with, is whats really important.

 

 

 

Lets not put people off mycology by regularly moving the goal posts.

 

 

.

[Kveldssanger]

No doubt about tailoring it to who you're dealing with, though my own opinion is that, as arboricultural professionals, ensuring we are - when liaising with one another - up to date with what the mycological community considered each fungal species to be, when referring to a fungus by its scientific name. Of course, if I were to call Cerioporus squamosus 'dryad saddle' then fine, though scientifically (and on a professional level) I'd consider it best-practice to refer to the fungus by its most up to date name; assuming one knows it.

[Jon Heuch]

If you aren't aware of new names you are somehow showing that you don't keep your professional knowledge up to date. And if you don't know about the name changes and why they were necessary, what else don't you know about the fungus? And what else about trees don't you know? And what does that say about the quality of your advice and actions...?

 

it's not quite that simple; the fact that a scientist has published a revised latin name doesn't meant that science has accepted his/her revision. There is likely to be a period of time (maybe several years long) before the revision is accepted and there may be dissent and non-acceptance. There may be further scientific examination and further papers. I don't think practical arboriculture need worry about this too much. If I use Ustulina deusta most people will know which species I am referring to....apart from a few new students who may have grown up with a new name.

 

Would anyone like to tell me what the correct botanical name for leyland cypress is? It's a classic example where practical arboriculture didn't really need to be distracted by botanical nerds, interesting though it might be to some.

 

In a few occasions where there is real change i.e. a species is split into two different names or strains are recognised (Phytophthoras being a prime example) nomenclature may be more important but with regards to P. species and other microorganisms we are in the hands of scientists as we can't see the things, only symptoms!

[daltontrees]

it's not quite that simple; the fact that a scientist has published a revised latin name doesn't meant that science has accepted his/her revision. There is likely to be a period of time (maybe several years long) before the revision is accepted and there may be dissent and non-acceptance. There may be further scientific examination and further papers. I don't think practical arboriculture need worry about this too much. If I use Ustulina deusta most people will know which species I am referring to....apart from a few new students who may have grown up with a new name.

 

Would anyone like to tell me what the correct botanical name for leyland cypress is? It's a classic example where practical arboriculture didn't really need to be distracted by botanical nerds, interesting though it might be to some.

 

In a few occasions where there is real change i.e. a species is split into two different names or strains are recognised (Phytophthoras being a prime example) nomenclature may be more important but with regards to P. species and other microorganisms we are in the hands of scientists as we can't see the things, only symptoms!

 

It's that simple for me. Arbtalk is populated by both theoretical and practical people, consultants and contractors. I fully understand that renaming a species doesn't change the implications of it being present. It's just an attitude of mind to strive always to be as right as one can be. And I think that deliberately ignoring current nomenclature reflects badly, to some degree. Not being aware of it is a different matter... until we all have some sort of Fungbook account that sends us alerts about new names, it will always take a while to notice thn adopt them.

 

I was reacting to suggestions that taxonomy is a self-justifying system that has nothing to do but torture people with unnecessary name changes. That definitely is not the case.

 

Leylandii? A cross-genuse hybrid, inherently interesting for that reason alone, and bound to be kicked about a bit as a fairly arbritrary nomenclature is settled upon. These freaks (the hybrids, not the taxonomists) are there to provoke debate, and we can learn from that.

[Kveldssanger]

I heard from Mr Overall that Geoffrey Kibby says Confistulina hepatica 'aint named as so any longer. Anyone know any more on this, or if I just heard wrong?

 

On the topic of the anamorph and teleomorph, look at them together here! A before and after shot. Wonder if one can 'anticipate' the difference. Note the lack of a hymenium (pore layer) on the anamorph in the foreground.

[Kveldssanger]

Would anyone like to tell me what the correct botanical name for leyland cypress is? It's a classic example where practical arboriculture didn't really need to be distracted by botanical nerds, interesting though it might be to some.

 

According to Aljos Farjon, x Cuprocyparis leylandii, but according to my lecturers it was x Cupressocyparis leylandii. Given Farjon's expertise in the world of the gymnosperms, his classification is worth a lot I would say.

[David Humphries]

I heard from Mr Overall that Geoffrey Kibby says Confistulina hepatica 'aint named as so any longer. Anyone know any more on this, or if I just heard wrong?

 

On the topic of the anamorph and teleomorph, look at them together here! A before and after shot. Wonder if one can 'anticipate' the difference. Note the lack of a hymenium (pore layer) on the anamorph in the foreground.

 

 

I've recently writen an article for Field Mycology on the Confistulina issue, just waiting on a few pointers from Martyn before it goes for edit/publication.

 

In essence they were never two seperately named species just purely different sexual stages, so both should be listed as Fistulina hepatica with reference made (if needed) to which stage is being produced, be that anamorph or telomorph, or if its showing both stages then holomorph could be used.

 

 

 

.

[Kveldssanger]

Makes sense - thanks for the clarification.

 

Look forward to that article! I subscribe to the BMS so will get that when it's published.

[sloth]

Great shot there kveldsanger, and thanks for the pm'd offer. I'm not often down your way but will keep it in mind.

On the subject of this thread a little birdy tells me Mrs Boddy says the Laetiporus found on yew is not sulphureus, and is yet to be named.

Tree fungi interactions are still so little understood...

[Kveldssanger]

Offer is always there - just pm me

 

It wouldn't surprise me on the Laeti side of things - even in L. sulphureus, the morphology is really quite different in many examples I have seen, even across the same host (i.e oak). There is likely to be an array of phylogenetic types even with the species, or sub-species within the Laetiporus sulphureus species itself. So much research to do. I'd be up for helping, if I knew how!