In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.1000908113037.226C-
100000 at hollywood.cinenet.net>,
Nathan Wilson <velosa at cinenet.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 truffler1635 at my-deja.com wrote:
>> > Please don't keep your opinions to yourself, Colin. We're all in this
> > together, and I think most of us are still in a learning curve. With
> > several thousand fungi to learn about, I think that's going to be a
> > lifetime-learning experience, at least for me.
>> Hear, hear.
>> And as for getting the taxonomy correct, don't worry about it too much.
> Much of fungi taxonomy is a moving target. The most important thing is
> to make sure that people will understand what you mean when you use a
> name. Also don't correct a name unless you studied the group reasonably
> recently. Of course even the old hands will occasionally make a typo
> or use an old name.
>> BTW, Daniel, didn't you mean Armillaria ostoyae rather than Armillariella
> oystoyae? :)
>To be honest, I'm not sure which appelation is preferred this week. ;)
Until someone takes the time to do DNA analysis, and also learns to
cultivate it, the species appelation is still somewhat in question, I
believe. Last time I heard Lorelei Norvell speak on the subject, there
were something like 12-15 different species in the complex generally
considered to be one fungus. But I have suspicions that some species may
be species specific, i.e. Armillaria a. will be on substrate a;
Armillaria b. on substrate b.; etc.
Ever since hearing about Eric Danell's DNA research into Cantarellus
cibarius (which is no longer cibarius in the US BTW) I'm deeply curious
to see what other species definitions will fall by the wayside.
Daniel B. Wheeler
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.