Taxonomic Swap 127813
(Guardado el 05/07/2023)
|
|
reemplazar con |
|
Comentarios
Yes, actually it makes no sense after reading it again (I don't know where my mind was when committing this swap). The name is indeed not even proposed for conservation. The source for conservation is the original publication from 1940... but ICN started conservation only in 1950.... The type of Emericellopsis is indeed Emericellopsis terricola (van Beyma, 1939 [note: incorrectly cited in the publication as Van Beyma 1940, published in 1940]) and isn't based on Stilbella erythrocephala. Multiple errors make this change unnacceptable.
@keith_seifert This might interest you. I also sent you a private message.
Añade un comentario
Entra
o Regístrate
para añadir comentarios
@nschwab This change is baffling to me.
The cited paper says "Although the generic name Stilbella is list as conserved name, it only against Botryonipha (Rossman et al. 2013). In the present study, the genus Stilbella (Engler & Prantl 1900, published in 1900) is synonymous with another conserved genus Emericellopsis (Van Beyma 1940, published in 1940) based on the lectotype of Stilbella, S. erythrocephalum, now regarded as S. fimetaria. In the present study, the ex-neotype culture of S. erythrocephalum (CBS 558.84) falls within the Emericellopsis clade (Fig. 2)."
Where do they get that Emericellopsis is based on Stilbella erythrocephala? Both IF and MB list the type of Emericellopsis as E. terricola.
Ok, either way, sure, Emericellopsis and Stilbella are congeneric.
Where do they get that Emericellopsis is conserved? It's not listed as conserved, or even ever proposed for conservation, at https://naturalhistory2.si.edu/botany/codes-proposals/. No indication of conservation at IF or MB.
Ok, suppose Emericellopsis actually was (somehow?) conserved. Why would it have priority over Stilbella? It came 40 years later.