10 related species idea

[Neil Snow]

The point made by R. Tulloss is one I had not considered, and brings to
mind a comment a fungal taxonomist once made to me regarding the
taxonomy of "fungi sensu lato" being at least a full century behind that
of vascular plants.  (Not for a want of effort, but because of the
difficulty of culturing and seeing all stages of a life cycle.)

If, during the publication of a new species, an ammendment were made to
the Botanical Code to require a key that included the 10 "most closely
related" species, the "fungi s.l." could be excepted.  Chapter 6 of the
Code shows precedent for addressing (at least some of) the intracacies
of fungal taxonomy.

I suppose this concern may apply to some "algae s.l." as well.

Neil Snow

Rodham E. Tulloss wrote:
>
> The difficulty with requiring a key to the 10 most similar taxa that I
> have experienced is that in large groups with poorly developed taxonomy
> (e.g., Amanita section Vaginatae (Fungi)), only a very few people in
> the world may have a half-way clear view of what the 10 most similar taxa
> are.  Since many descriptions of the example section are still written
> disregarding the last forty years of microscopic work (and development
> of descriptive techniques of microanatomy), the view of most professionals
> and amateurs about similarity is still going to have to do with such
> characters as color, size, spore size, and a few other characters.
>
> Rod Tulloss