Ronald H. Petersen

The Correct Name for the Type Species of Clavulinopsis

Berkeley (1843) described a clavarioid fungus, naming it Clavaria miniata. This basionym was used in the combination Clavulinopsis miniata (Berk.) Corner (950o). As such, it was regarded as the correct name for the type species (= C. sulcata van Overeem) of Clavulinopsis van Overeem (1923) by Corner (I95o) and Petersen (1968). Recently, I stumbled upon the name Clavaria miniata Purton (I82I: 267-268, pl. xviii), clearly representing a different taxon from that described by Berkeley (Purtons taxon seems surely to be thelephoroid). Clavaria miniata Berkeley is a later homonym (and therefore illegitimate), while Clavulinopsis miniata Corner dates from I950 when the taxon was legitimately proposed (Art. 72, note, ICBN). Van Overeem had named the species usually placed in synonymy under C. miniata Berk. as Clavulinopsis sulcata in 1923, and this name is correct for the type species of Clavulinopsis. Synonymy is as follows: Clavulinopsis sulcata van Overeem. 1923. = Clavaria miniata Berkeley. I843. nom. illegit. homonym (non Clavaria miniata Purton. 1821.) Clavulinopsis miniata Corner. I950 (Bas.: Clavaria miniata Berkeley, non Purton.) Several older names often placed in taxonomic synonymy under Clavulinopsis miniata (Berk.) Corner have been found to represent other taxa, viz. Clavaria miltina Berk. I852. (=Multiclavula sp.), Clavaria cardinalis Boud. & Pat. i888 (= Clavulinopsis amoena), Clavaria fusiformis var. antillarum Pat. 1903. (= Clavulinopsis laeticolor var. antillarum), Clavaria phoenicea Zoll. & Mor. I844. (nom. dubium), Clavaria laeta Berk. & Br. 1875. (nom. dubium). Berkeleys paper includes several pages incorrectly numbered by the typesetter. Therefore, the description of C. miniata is on page 5I6, although the page is numbered as 416.

Proposals for Treatment of Fungus Family Names with Vernacular Terminations

The helpful summary paper on family names for fungi by Cooke & Hawksworth (1970) came complete with its own questions and issues. Chief among these was a request for redefinition of Art. 18, Note 2, and Art. 32 of the Code (Lanjouw, et al., 1966, the Code then prevailing). These passages appeared to partially contradict each other, and allowed too wide a latitude for interpretation. Cooke & Hawksworth raised the problem as follows: