Discuție:Amanita regalis
Adăugare subiectUltimul comentariu: acum 1 an de Strobilomyces în subiectul Identification of File:Amanita Panherina.JPG
 | Articolul Amanita regalis este un subiect de care se ocupă Proiectul Fungi, un spațiu de organizare pentru dezvoltarea articolelor despre fungi Dacă doriți să participați la acest proiect, vă rugăm să vă înscrieți aici. |
| B | Acest articol a fost evaluat ca făcând parte din grupa B pe scala de calitate. |
| Neclasificat | Acest articol încă nu a fost evaluat pe scala de importanță. |
Identification of File:Amanita aspera - Flickr - gailhampshire.jpg
[modificare sursă]
Sorry to write in English. The mushroom in File:Amanita aspera - Flickr - gailhampshire.jpg is Amanita rubescens, not Amanita aspera (which is a synonym of Amanita franchetii). Please see the discussion page of the file. Strobilomyces (discuție) 2 august 2020 19:47 (EEST)
- Thank you for your opinion. It is possible. However, as with several other species, you are wrong with your claim that Amanita aspera is identical to Amanita franchetti. Neither Index Fungorum nor MycoBank see it that way. So, for example, your modification Lactarius theiogalus would be the same as Lactarius tabidus is absolutely wrong and should be changed. It would make sense if you matched your preferred interpretations with the facts...--Sacha47 (discuție) 07:50, 3. august 2020 (EEST)
- I take it that when you say "it is possible", you mean that it is possible that the mushroom in the photo is Amanita rubescens. I don't think this photo could be of A. aspera according to any interpretation of that name which I have found - I think the distinction will be made based on colours etc. which can be seen on the photo. It would be very helpful to me if you could say where you get you definition of A. aspera (and what is the author attribution). I think any reference you provide must be very old. You made this comment also on my talk page and I intend to answer you in detail there. I think you are sowing confusion if you try to maintain the use of the names A. aspera and Lactarius theiogalus. Strobilomyces (discuție) 3 august 2020 13:45 (EEST)
- My references for Amanita aspera: 1. Bruno Cetto: „Der große Pilzführer”, vol. 2, Editura BLV Verlagsgesellschaft, München, Berna, Viena 1980, p. 18-19, ISBN 3-405-12081-0;
- I take it that when you say "it is possible", you mean that it is possible that the mushroom in the photo is Amanita rubescens. I don't think this photo could be of A. aspera according to any interpretation of that name which I have found - I think the distinction will be made based on colours etc. which can be seen on the photo. It would be very helpful to me if you could say where you get you definition of A. aspera (and what is the author attribution). I think any reference you provide must be very old. You made this comment also on my talk page and I intend to answer you in detail there. I think you are sowing confusion if you try to maintain the use of the names A. aspera and Lactarius theiogalus. Strobilomyces (discuție) 3 august 2020 13:45 (EEST)
2. Marcel Bon: „Pareys Buch der Pilze”, Editura Kosmos, Halberstadt 2012, p. 296, ISBN 978-3-440-13447-4
Well I can read, and the facts look like this: Your Amanita aspera = Amanita franchetti? is declared in Index Fungorum Amanita aspera = Echinoderma asperum [1], while for Mycobank, Amanita aspera = Lepiota aspera (!)[2]. Furthermore, Amanita franchetti is, according to Index Fungorum, the current name for some variations,[3], as well as you can see in MycoBank[4].--Sacha47 (discuție) 07:52, 4. august 2020 (EEST)
- The only valid use of the name Amanita aspera is for species Echinoderma asperum, which is the same as Lepiota aspera, but that makes no sense as it is quite a different mushroom, not an Amanita in the modern meaning of the word. In the last 100 years or so, any serious use of the term Amanita aspera must have been invalidly of an actual Amanita, in fact the species which is now called Amanita franchetti, and that must be the sense in which it is used in your references. Index Fungorum has a page for this wrong use of the name, as I explained at length on my talk page.
- 1980 was around the time that the error in the use of A. aspera was discovered (I indicated 1978 - 1987 in my previous comment), so it is no surprise that Cetto is still using that meaning. I have Marcel Bon: "The Mushrooms and Toadstools of Britain and North-western Europe", Hodder & Stoughton, Domino Books Ltd., St. Helier, Jersey, 1987, ISBN: 0-340-39935-X, which says on page 296 that A. aspera is a synonym of A. franchetii. I think that 2012 is not the relevant date for your second reference, "Pareys Buch der Pilze" goes back to 1988 and I think that the text must date from that time if it gives A. aspera as a current name (and Bon must have written the text even earlier). In your two references A. aspera must have been used in the sense of what is now called A. franchetii.
- I am not too sure whether you are contradicting me or not with your last sentence. You give references to relevant pages. Anyway, what I say is right and amply backed up by Index Fungorum and other sources. The name Amanita aspera should not be used any more and the only reason that it should be mentioned in the Wikipedia projects is to explain this historical confusion. Strobilomyces (discuție) 4 august 2020 14:49 (EEST)
- Unfortunately, you could not convince me. You did not really answer to my objections regarding the terms of the two most important nomenclature committees, probably because you have no convincing evidence. Well, I will stick to the taxon the species is called in Romania, among other by Dr. Ing. Ioana Tudor.-- Sacha47 (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2020 (CEST)
Identification of File:Amanita Panherina.JPG
[modificare sursă]
Also unfortunately File:Amanita Panherina.JPG does not show A. pantherina (since striations are visible on the ring), but rather it shows A. excelsa. Please see the talk page. Strobilomyces (discuție) 7 septembrie 2023 17:39 (EEST)
