NOMENCLATORIAL STATUS OF GOMPHIDIUS FRIES

Abstract

Most authors have assumed that the type species of the genus Gomphidius is G. glutinosus (Schaeffer ex Fr.) Fr. Only Clements & Shear (1931) and Singer (1936) who quote G. viscidus (L.) Fr., Donk (1962) and Kotlaba & Pouzar (1972) quoting G. rutilus (Schaeff. ex Fr.) Lundell & Nannfeldt, are exceptions. Donk had originally (1949) preferred G. glutinosus but later changed his mind. Until 1964 (when Miller separated Chroogomphus generically from Gomphidius proper, which is typified by G. glutinosus) the choice of a lectotype for Gomphidius irrelevant for generic taxonomy. But it is not so now because Miller should have chosen the generic name Gomphidius Fr. rather than Chroogomphus (Sing.) Miller for the group typified by Gomphidius rutilus indeed G. rutilus were to be considered the lectotype species of Gomphidius. Kotlaba & Pouzar (1972) because of their acceptance of Donk's later choice proposed a new generic name for the group typified by G. glutinosus, transferring all species belonging there to Leucogomphidius Kotlaba & Pouzar (1972) and retransferring or transferring all species of the group Chroogomphus to Gomphidius. But Miller really wrong? For the following reasons I do not believe so: Earle's indication of a type (G. glutinosus) can, but must not be followed according to the Guide (Code ed. 1972, p. 76) letter f if the choice made arbitrarily (i.e. by a mechanical system). The first selection of a lectotype is Clements' & Shear's (1931): G. viscidus which not acceptable because (1) it does not appear as such, i.e. as an accepted specific name, the of the basionym (since Gomphidius, as becomes evident Fries' Flora scanica 1835 is a new name -in order to avoid homonymy with Gomphus Pers. ex Gray for Agaricus tribus Gomphus Fr. (1821); the latter is the basionym and contains two species, both having an A. viscidus as synonym); it was based upon a misinterpretation of the protologue (Guide 4 f) since both indications of A. viscidus (as synonyms) refer to a single Linnean source two interpretations (Persoon's being the same as G. glutinosus, Fries' being the same as G. rutilus); the binomial Gomphidius viscidus (L.) Fr. is nomenclatorially applicable only 1838 i.e. after the protologue. (2) The as well as later descriptions indicate a glutinous veil which is not present G. viscidus (L. ex Fr.) Fr. sensu Fries (_ G. rutilus, see also Miller 1964); thus Guide f likewise applies here, the Friesian interpretation were preferred. The first defensible choice of a lectotype then is Imai's (1938) who followed by Singer & Smith (1948), Singer (1948), Donk (1949) and Horak (1968): G. glutinosus. Donk's (1962) choice G. rutilus must be rejected (1) because it is mentioned merely as an example of a tentative pre-1821 name which never taken up as such afterwards; Gomphus Fr. (1821) introduced without reference to the earlier provisorium (1818: in plures hic forte tribus dividi posset ex gr. Gomphi .. .1), so that it cannot be interpreted as the basionym of Gomphidius; (2) because it proposed much later than other acceptable proposals of a type species; (3) because it does not fully correspond to the type description the