PERSOONIA
Published by the Rijksherbarium, Leiden
Volume Part 7, 2, pp. 151-154, (1973)
Definition and typification of the genus
Lycoperdon Tourn. per Pers. (Gasteromycetes)
V. Demoulin
Département de Botanique de l'Université de Liège, Belgium
An of the of the variations in delimitation of the account history genus
is and the of is It is Lycoperdon presented typification the genus discussed.
that in of nomenclature pointed out application art. 43 of the Code of no
between Myxomycete has been validly published as Lycoperdon 1753
and 1801.
The introduced Tournefort and the genus Lycoperdon was by (1700 : 563) name
used the refer the less was during eighteenth century to to more or globose fungi of with a pulverulent content.This concept allowed the inclusion most Gasteromy-
cetes and also of Myxomycetes, Pyrenomycetes, Tuberales, Elaphomycetales, Ure-
dinales for find Linnaeus As the as one may example by (1753: 1183-1185). long as be genus is considered to belong to the Gasteromycetes its valid publication is to
found in Persoon's Persoon's is rather Synopsis Fungorum (1801 : 140). diagnosis
“Peridium demum verrucis elliptic: caulescens, apice ruptum, squamulosis, aut spinulosis obsitum. (Pulvis semimalis viridis)” However the enumeration of included
L. L. L. L. L. species (L. giganteum, bovista, pratense, utriforme, mammaeforme, excipuli- forme, L. perlatum, L. candidum, L. echinatum, L. umbrinum, L. quercinum, L. pyriforme, L.
shows the wider than the in gossypinum) a concept of genus somewhat one current
but that still retained in the use very natural, including only Gasteromycetes are
same family Lycoperdaceae.
Some conservative authors still used the in radically genus Lycoperdon a very
wide the first of the nineteenth Some of them like sense during quarter century. described Persoon in Sclero- Poiret (1808) even recombined in Lycoperdon species by
derma or Geastrum. For example Poiret (1808 : 588) combined Scleroderma spadiceum
Schaeff. trans Pers. in the with the unfortunate that it genus Lycoperdon consequence turned So this classical Lycoperdon spadiceum Pers. (1809 : 20) into a later homonym.
be the but little used L. lividum Pers. name must replaced by contemporary (1809:18).
With the Friesian era however Persoon's concept of the genus was definitively
admitted and restrict it further. Rostkovius a tendency appeared even to (1839)
was the first to emend Lycoperdon by excluding species whose opening is irregular
after the of and not through a pore. This conception was generally accepted paper
who in Fries's little noticed Morgan (1890), brought common use (1849 : 442) genus
* Charge de Recherches au Fonds National Beige de la Recherche Scientifique.
151
151 Persoonia Vol. Part 152 7, 2, 1973
Calvatia. This is to be conserved of Rostkovius & genus against Langermannia (Stafleu
al., 1972 : 254); though the type species are widely different, the genus Langermannia
is frequently used by authors subdividing Calvatia (cf. Kreisel, 1962).
Quelet (1873) abandoned previous genera Lycoperdon and Bovista and created
instead Utraria and Globaria, two fully superfluous names that would have had no
had Globaria been Schroeter and Fisher consequences not adopted by (1889) (1900)
in an emended sense to refer to species with a poorly developed subgleba but without
the Bovista The exclusion of those from taken type capillitium. species Lycoperdon was
the up again by Kreisel (1964, 1967) who treated them as subgenus Globaria of
Bovista. The name Globaria cannot be used at the generic rank for either is it attributed
to Quelet and illegitimate because it is superfluous (Art. 63) or it is attributed to
Schroeter and then illegitimate because it is homonymous (Art. 64). However as a
subgenus of Bovista it can certainly be used but its paternity must then be given to
Kreisel (Art. 72, note).
Lloyd (1906) made an attempt to exclude from Lycoperdon all species with pedi-
but he followed. cellate spores, was never
The latest emendation of Lycoperdon comes from the exclusion of species devoid Smarda of capillitium with the creation of the genera Vascellum by (1958) and
Morganella by Kreisel & Dring (1967).
The actual of the be considered the Kreisel concept genus can one developed by in his study of Lycoperdaceae culminating in his monograph of Bovista of 1967.
According to that concept Lycoperdon should contain species with an endoperidium
with and opening by a pore, having a subgleba large cells, a pseudocolumella a
capillitium, the latter not of the Bovista type. So defined the genus is fairly homo-
the few like geneous and, with exception of a species L. rimulatum Peck, whose capil-
from litium does not exactly fit the usual type, easy to separate neighbouring taxa.
However the borderline between as Malengon (1969) already noted, by transferring
Lycoperdon and Bovista this conception makes the genus Bovista less homogeneous.
also consider that the character used Bovista from Personally I subgleba to separate
is of little taxonomic the character of of Lycoperdon weight. Similarly breaking up
the of does in endoperidium, diagnostic Calvatia, not appear to me a good one
a natural classification. I believe that an analysis of Lycoperdaceae based on
characters and into the world flora would lead various taking account us to signif-
icant of It is then that would have remodelling our generic concept. probable we
to follow Smith (1968) and use again larger genera. For the present, however, I
consider that of offer the best framework for Kreisel's conceptions genera possible
and I think that after all those studying Lycoperdaceae only genera are adequately
monographed can their limits be discussed again.
Typification of the genus
considered the Lycoperdon perlatum Pers. per Pers. is currently type of the genus
in Lycoperdon. This tradition seems to go back to Cunningham (1942) or some way DEMOULIN: Typification of Lycoperdon 153
to Clements & Shear (1931) who cite the devalidated synonym L. gemmatum Batsch.
This should be choice of typification accepted following Art. 8 (first a lectotype),
Recommendation 7 B (preservation ofcurrent use) and Guide for the determination
of types § 4 C (respect of segregations).
is admit A possible reason to oppose the designation of L. perlatum as type to
that since the genus Lycoperdon included Myxomycetes for eighteenth century
authors, it was validly published by Linnaeus in 1753 since this is the starting point
for the nomenclature of Myxomycetes (Art. 13) and so that it must be typified
according to Linnaeus' conceptions.
This hypothesis is self destructive. Linnaeus' diagnosis published in the Genera
ed. Art. Note follows: Plantarum, 5 : 493. 1754 (cf. 13, 1) runs as
1082. Mich. Vaill. B.P. XVI: Bovi Dill. Lycoperdon. *Tournef. 331. 97. 4-10. sta Lycoperdoides Mich. Mich. Geaster Mich 98. Lycoperdastrum 99. Mich. 100. Carpobolus 101.
Fungus subrotundus, Seminibus farinaceus impalpabilibus repletus, ab apice dehiscens.
of This is course vague but the reference to Tournefort is explicit and is only
made Plate which Genera cited to 33 1 only represents Gasteromycetes. as synonyms
are also Gasteromycetes. As a matter of fact it seems that to pre-linnean authors,
the scientific for and that Lycoperdon is name puff-balls Myxomycetes, mainly Lycogala
epidendrum, are only accessorily added. Linnaeus was probably the first to enlarge
the his farinam fatiscentia." It does considerably genus with section "Parasitica in
he intented this section essential for the definitionof the not appear to treat as genus.
Fries summarises well this situation (1829 : 28): "Genus Lycoperdon (h.e. Crepitus
Lupi Patrum) constituit Tournefort, optime limitavit Michelidein latissime fluctuans,
Persoon." praesente angusto, nimis fere angusto, constrixit
If the genus Lycoperdon ofLinnaeus is to be typified it seems that following already
mentioned Guide for the determination of well principles (Rec. 7 B, types) as
the attention should the ofTournefort as according to one obviously give to concepts and other authors to whom Linnaeus refers, the type must be L. bovista L. This
the whole species practically encompasses family Lycoperdaceae. Consequently
the is of and cannot have been genus Lycoperdon a genus Gasteromycetes validly published before Persoon.
An unnoticed of this is that in apparently consequence Myxomycetes published
the genus Lycoperdon between 1753 and 1801 are not validly published (Art. 43).
leave it of work the nomenclatural I to specialists Myxomycetes to out consequences of this which affect least listed in Martin & at some twenty names Alexopoulos
(!9 69)-
LITERATURE CITED
E. & L. The of York. CLEMENTS, F. C. SHEAR, (1931). genera fungi. New
CUNNINGHAM, G. H. (1944). The Gasteromycetes of Australia and New Zealand. Dunedin.
E. In Nat. PflFam. FISCHER, (1900). Lycoperdineae. 1(1**): 313-324. PERSOONIA Vol. Part 154 7. 2, 1973
FRIES, E. (1829). Systema mycologicum 3(1). Gryphiswaldae.
—— (1849). Summa Vegetabilium Scandinaviae. Sectio posterior. Holmiae & Lipsiae. KREISEI,, H. (1962). Die Lycoperdaceae der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik. Floris-
tische taxonomische In und Revision. Reprium Spec. nov. Regni veg. 64: 89-201.
-—-— Ubersicht der Dill, (1964). Vorlaufige Gattung Bovista ex Pers. In Reprium Spec. nov.
Regni veg. 69: 196-211.
(1967). Taxonomisch-pflanzengeographische Monographie der Gattung Bovista. In
Beih. Nova Hedwigia 25.
H. & D. M. DRING An emendation of the Zeller KREISEL, (1967). genus Morganella (Lycoper-
In daceae). Reprium Spec. nov. Regni veg. 74: 109-122. LINNAEUS, C. (1753). Species Plantarum. Holmiae. C. G. The Genus Bovistella. Writ. LLOYD, (1906). Mycol. 2: 277-287.
MALENQON, G. (1969). Analysis of "H. Kreisel, Taxonomisch-pflanzengeographische Mono-
der Bull. Soc. Maroc. graphic Gattung Bovista.” In Sei. nat. phys. 48: 175-177. MARTIN, G. W. & C. J. ALEXOPOULOS, (196g). The Myxomycètes. Iowa City.
A. P. North American Third The Order II. MORGAN, (1890). Fungi. paper. Gastromycetes.
In Cincinn. Hist. Lycoperdaceae (continued). J. Soc. nat. 12: 163-172.
PERSOON, C. H. (1801). Synopsis methodica Fungorum. Gottingae.
(1809). Mémoire sur les Vesse-Loups ou Lycoperdon. In T. Bot., Paris (ed. Morot) 2:
I & 5-3 1", Pi- II.
POIRET, J. (1808) in DE LA MARCK, J., Encyclopédie méthodique. Botanique. 8. Paris. L. Les du des Ile In Mém. QUÉLET, (1873). champignons Jura et Vosges. partie . . . etc.
Emul. Montbéliard II Soc. 5: 335-427. F. Pilze. In Deutschi. Abt. 1-16. ROSTKOVIUS, (1839). STURM, J., Fl., 3, 5: 1-36, pis. Nürnberg.
Pilze. In Schles. Breslau. SCHROETER, J. (1889). COHN, F., KryptogFl. 3 (1): 641-814. CSR SMARDA, F. (1958). Lycoperdaceae [excl. Disciseda], In PILÂT, A. (Ed.) Fl. B 1 (Gaste-
Praha. romyc.): 257-377,755-775. SMITH, A. H. (1968). Speciation in higher fungi in relation to modern generic concepts. In
Mycologia 60: 742-755.
STAFLEU, F. A. & AL. (Eds.) (1972). International code of botanical nomenclature. In Regnum Veg. 82.
PITTON TOURNEFORT, J. DE (1700). Institutiones rei herbariae, editio altera. 3 vols. Paris.