Abstract
A neotype designation for Helvella fusca proposed in 1997 proves to have been erroneous because an illustration accompanying the original description was overlooked. Such illustrations normally have served as the lectotype when all known specimens of the author's taxon have been lost. The authors of that neotype designation should instead have designated the illustration as a lectotype and a specimen as an epitype, which is done in this paper. The so-called neotype specimen is now selected as the epitype specimen. A full description, illustrations and remarks about synonyms and a non-synonym are also provided.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
