R E I N W A R D T I A

Published by Herbarium Bogoriense, Kebun Raya Indonesia
Volume 1, Part 4,' pp. 483-486 (1952)

ON GENERIC TYPE SPECIES INDICATED BY MISAPPLIED NAMES

M. A. DONK*

When the type method was introduced in the "International Rules
of Botanical Nomenclature," it was stated that "a nomenclatural type
is that constituent element to which the name of a group is permanently
attached" and, further, that "the type of . . . a generic name is a species
and that of a species . . . is usually a specimen or preparation. In some
species, however, the type is a description or figure given by a previous
author" (Art. 18) .1 No doubt, the type of a generic name is a species and
that of a specific name a specimen (or its substitute).

A species may be variously interpreted as to its limits; it may be
narrowly or broadly conceived. It may receive a name, but it remains
a species even if it has no name. It frequently occurs that a specific name
is misapplied to a quite different species. Hence it is also evident that
a species and a specific name are two intrinsically different notions, not
at all identical and interchangeable. As quoted above, Art. 18 positively
says that the type of a generic name is a species and does not refer to
specific names. I believe this article really states what it wanted to convey
in this respect, and is not an instance of unfortunate wording.

A species comprises a vast number of 'individuals plants' and of
these some are preserved often only in part, or are subject to taxonomic
study without preservation, and represent the 'specimens' of the Rules;
when the species is given a name, one of these is or afterwards becomes
the 'type specimen.' Thus a (type) species and a (type) specimen are
different notions.

In the binomial system a specific name is a combination of two words.
The first part, or generic appellation, stands for a generic description,
the second part, or specific epithet, for a specific description2: a specific
name roots in two different descriptions. Far more often than not these
two are published on different occasions by different authors.

•Keeper of Herbarium Bogoriense, Kebun Raya Indonesia.
i'Group' has now become 'taxon.'
2Only exceptionally one description is permitted under heavily restricted cir-

cumstances to repressent both the generic appellation and the specific description
(Art. 43).

— 483 —



486 R E I N W A R D T I A [VOL. 1

Rogers, in addition, concluded: "Ergo, Cristella = Sebacina."'0

Patouillard published, first, a new generic name, Cristella, for a
new taxon accompanied by a description drawn up from the specimens
he actually studied; among these the type specimen of Merisma cristatum
Pers. was not represented. Secondly, he published a new combination
("Crist, cristata") for an 'old' species, basinym, Merisma cristatum Pers.6;
this recombination has to be treated as a synonym of Persoon's name given
to the species of Sebacina. These two simple and easily extricable facts
would seem a very slender basis for confusion.

EXAMPLE 3.—Following the same unsupportable line of reasoning,
Rogers identified the species he selected as the type of Soppittiella Mass.
(Brit. Fung. Fl. 1: 106. 1892) not according to what Massee understood
by that name, but what he, Rogers, understood by it, and so Soppittiella
became to him another synonym of Sebacina Tul.

The fungus described and illustrated by Massee as Soppittiella cris-
tata Mass. ("Thelephora cristata, Fr.") is presumably also the same as
Corticium fastidiosum (Cristella cristata sensu Pat.), although some
allowances for errors in his description should be made: for instance,
the spores are not "pale vinous." The generic diagnosis of Soppittiella
does not agree well with Massee's description of this selected type. It
states that the fruit-body is "soft, fleshy, and subgelatinous when growing,
collapsing when dry" and (in the general discussion) "soft, fleshy, and
subgelatinous when moist." On the other hand, Massee's accounts of the
genus and the species he attributed to it are so confused, inaccurate, and
even evidently erroneous that the proper selection of a different species
agreeing more closely with the generic description would be a complicated
matter with a subjective and debatable result. I, therefore, wholeheartedly
support Rogers' choice of the indicated species, which makes, to me, Sop-
pittiella a later synonym of Cristella, but not of Sebacina as was concluded
by him!

"He proceeds to draw attention to the later name Phlebiella P. Karst. which
he considers the correct one for the genus in an emended circumscription. There are
signs that some other mycologists are inclined to accept this view; compare H. S.
Jackson (in Canad. J. Res. 26 C: 144, 155. 1948) and John Eriksson [in Symb. bot.
upsal. 10 (5): 6. 1950]. This unexpected development induced the present note.

SRather than Thelephora cristata (Pers.) ex Fr. Whether or not the new recom-
bination Cristella cristata was validly published is again a different matter.

R E I N W A R D T I A

Published by Herbarium Bogoriense, Kebun Raya Indonesia
Volume 1, Part 4, pp. 487-500 (1952)

NOTES ON MALESIAN FUNGI—II*

On the genera Auricularia, Hirneola, and Laschia

M. A. D O N K * *

SUMMARY

1. After discussing the outer characters of the three genera Auricularia Bull,
ex Merat, Hirneola Fr. (1848), and Laschia Fr., now often combined into a single
genus, the author concludes that there is every reason to follow Bresadola and to
keep Auricularia and Hirneola apart as distinct genera, and to enter Laschia into
Hirneola.

2. It is pointed out that in Hirneola the hymenophore is not invariably inferior.
3. The author once more discusses the desirability of conserving the name

Hirneola Fr. 1848. He withdraws his previous proposal for conservation of Auricularia
Bull, ex Brongn. 1824.

4. The new combination Hirneola nigricans (Sw. ex Fr.) Donk is proposed.
5. It is possible that the correct name for the Judas' ear is Hirneola auricula

(L. ex Mexat) H. Karst.

HISTORICAL OUTLINE.—The three auriculariaceous genera Auricularia
Bull, [ex Merat 1821], Laschia Fr., and Hirneola Fr. (1848), kept apart
by Fries, are now often combined into a single genus under the name
of Auricularia. When introduced, the earliest of these three names, Auri-
cularia, covered various fungi now considered not closely related, among
which Auricularia mesenterica (Dicks, ex Fr.) Fr. (as Au. tremelloides
Bull.) and Stereum hirsutum (Willd. ex Fr.) S. F. Gray (as Au. reflexa
Bull.) were the most noteworthy representatives. Bulliaird did not include
Tremella auricula L. = T. auricula-judae Bull. = Hirneola auricula (L.
ex Merat) H. Karst. (see p. 499), the well-known Judas' ear. In fact there
was not much difference between Auricularia Bull, and Thelephora Ehrh.
as the latter genus was emended by Persoon. Certain authors even
replaced the name Thelephora by Auricularia, retaining the Persoonian
genus unaltered (Merat, see p. 498).

The first to combine Au. mesenterica and H. auricula into one genus,
exclusive of other species (like Stereum hirsutum), was Link (1809), who
was followed by a respectable line of mycologists such as Persoon, Duby,
Secretan, Link himself, and others. This genus, too, was called Auricularia;

*The first part appeared in Bull. bot. Gdns Buitenzorg III 17: 473-482 1948
**Keeper of Herbarium Bogoriense, Kebun Raya Indonesia.

487


	Binder6
	Rein.Vol 1,Part 4, pp 451-506_Page_01
	Rein.Vol 1,Part 4, pp 451-506_Page_18
	Rein.Vol 1,Part 4, pp 451-506_Page_19