name | Limacella subfurnacea |
name status | nomen acceptum |
author | Contu |
intro | double click in markup mode to edit. |
cap | double click in markup mode to edit. |
discussion | See Limacella furnacea.—R. E. Tulloss |
brief editors | RET |
name | Limacella subfurnacea | ||||||||
author | Contu. 1990. Bol. Soc. Brot., Ser. 2 62: 380. | ||||||||
name status | nomen acceptum | ||||||||
etymology | sub-, "like" or "similar to" + furnacea [here treated as species epithet] | ||||||||
MycoBank nos. | 355008 | ||||||||
GenBank nos. |
Due to delays in data processing at GenBank, some accession numbers may lead to unreleased (pending) pages.
These pages will eventually be made live, so try again later.
| ||||||||
holotypes | CAG; ?isotype, in herb. Bon 90296 => LIP | ||||||||
type studies | double click in markup mode to edit. | ||||||||
revisions |
Gminder. 1994. Z. Mykol. 60(2): 390-391. Neville and Poumarat. 2004. Fung. Eur. 9: 199-201. | ||||||||
intro |
The following text may make multiple use of each data field. The field may contain magenta text presenting data from a type study and/or revision of other original material cited in the protolog of the present taxon. Macroscopic descriptions in magenta are a combination of data from the protolog and additional observations made on the exiccata during revision of the cited original material. The same field may also contain black text, which is data from a revision of the present taxon (including non-type material and/or material not cited in the protolog). Paragraphs of black text will be labeled if further subdivision of this text is appropriate. Olive text indicates a specimen that has not been thoroughly examined (for example, for microscopic details) and marks other places in the text where data is missing or uncertain. The following material is derived from the protolog of the present species and from (Neville and Poumarat 2004). | ||||||||
stipe | double click in markup mode to edit. | ||||||||
basidiospores | from protolog: [-/-/-] 5.2 - 6.7 × 4.8 - 6 μm, (est. Q = 1.05 - 1.12). [Note: In order to generate an approximate sporogaph, a range of Q has been conservatively estimated.—ed.] | ||||||||
ecology | from protolog: Infrequent. In deciduous woods. | ||||||||
material examined | from protolog: ITALY: SARDINIA—unkn. loc., s.d. unkn. coll. s.n. [Contu 89/54] (holotype, CAG; ?isotype, in herb. Bon 90296 => LIP). | ||||||||
discussion |
The protolog does not mention the collecting locality of the holotype. Gminder reports revision of a "co-type" from Sardinia deposited in the herbarium of M. Bon with the number 90296. More research is necessary in order to understand whether the collection in the Bon herbarium is an isotype or a paratype or has some other status. According to MycoBank, Gminder (1994), and Neville and Poumarat (2004), the present name is a taxonomic synonym of Limacella furnacea. A sporograph comparison of the present taxon with L. grisea and L. furnacea follows: Unfortunately, this diagram is of limited value because the spore measurement methods of Neville and Poumarat (2004) are similar to those seen in works of Reid in which more than one set of spore measurements are presented for a given taxon with each set being said to be associated with spores of a certain shape or range of shapes. Moreover, Neville and Poumarat permit values of Q to be below 1.0 (at least in the case of the present taxon), which makes averages and other results of combination of data difficult to interpret or uninterpretable within the methods used by following Bas (1969) in terms of the meaning and use of Q. | ||||||||
citations | —R. E. Tulloss | ||||||||
editors | RET | ||||||||
Information to support the viewer in reading the content of "technical" tabs can be found here.
name | Limacella subfurnacea |
bottom links | [ Keys & Checklists ] |
name | Limacella subfurnacea |
bottom links | [ Keys & Checklists ] |
Each spore data set is intended to comprise a set of measurements from a single specimen made by a single observer; and explanations prepared for this site talk about specimen-observer pairs associated with each data set. Combining more data into a single data set is non-optimal because it obscures observer differences (which may be valuable for instructional purposes, for example) and may obscure instances in which a single collection inadvertently contains a mixture of taxa.