Lycoperdon by Excluding Species Op
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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.