Important fungi name changes

Probably best to start a thread on this, so people in the future can use this.

Three ones people should probably be aware of (two from this year):

Polyporus squamosus > Cerioporus squamosus - see here

Piptoporus betulinus > Fomitopsis betulina - see here

Inonotus dryadeus > Pseudoinonotus dryadeus - see here

Probably best to start a thread on this, so people in the future can use this.

 

Three ones people should probably be aware of (two from this year):

 

Polyporus squamosus > Cerioporus squamosus - see here

 

Piptoporus betulinus > Fomitopsis betulina - see here

 

Inonotus dryadeus > Pseudoinonotus dryadeus - see here

im sick of name changes - im sticking to old school names:001_tt2:

Ow goodie more to confuse our planning/tree officer, heck she didn't know what I was on about yesterday with krex - had to go get book out and show her as all she called it was charcoal fungus 😭

Sent from my D5803 using Arbtalk mobile app

Ow goodie more to confuse our planning/tree officer, heck she didn't know what I was on about yesterday with krex - had to go get book out and show her as all she called it was charcoal fungus 😭

 

Sent from my D5803 using Arbtalk mobile app

oh dear

They've obviously not got enough proper work to be doing so they're keeping themselves in a job by changing the names.

Bit worrying about the tree officer who didn't know about kretz!!

On mycobank the names are still listed as the proper names, not the new ones

Now your asking me to spell, hear go's but someone might want to correct

Kretzschmaria deusta*

Sorry should have put

Kretz as an abbreviation not krex

Sent from my D5803 using Arbtalk mobile app

Probably best to start a thread on this, so people in the future can use this.

 

Three ones people should probably be aware of (two from this year):

 

Polyporus squamosus > Cerioporus squamosus - see here

 

Piptoporus betulinus > Fomitopsis betulina - see here

 

Inonotus dryadeus > Pseudoinonotus dryadeus - see here

Thanks for that, I had seen the last two being used but I didn't check whther this was because they were outdated uses or brand new ones. Now I know.

For those that are dismissive of all this - I believe it's important that new names are used. It's a matter of taxonomy, and that in turn is a result of research into DNA that shows where species originated. New species can arise as a result of natural genetic mutation, usually at the point of spore production form parent cells, and those mutations that are better adapted to their environment will do better, and will eventually supersede the parent genetic mix at that locale. They might still be able to breed with the parent species. Eventually mutations will carry the new species so far away in characteristics from the parent species that inter-reproduction will no longer be possible. At that point it could be said we have a new species. These branches in the evolutionary tree are what taxonomy is all about. Understanting this adaptation is a step closer to understanding the subtle slow long-term co-evolution with trees. This is one reason why it's important to follow taxonomic name changes. Were the parents of these new species losing the battle agaisnt host tree species? And why? What were the trees doinfg differently?

But here's another one to adopt the new names. 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...?

Personally (na dI appreciate that I am a sad git) I think it interesting that the fungus formerly known as Piptoporus betulinus is currently undestood to be more closely related to Fomitopsis pinicola. And that The fungus fka Inonotus dryadaeus is not as closely related to Inonotus hispidus as formerly suggested by its old name.

Wow, I just clicked on the link beside Cerioporus. Synonyms (now largely redundant) include Agaricus, Boletus and Trametes. Anybody still using those old-school names? I hope not.

Totally agree, Jules. I prefer to keep on top of it as it is indeed keeping up with the times, and ensures we're still being mycologically as accurate as possible.