Propolis was established by Fries (Syst. Mycol. 2, 1: 198. 1822) as a subgenus of Stictis. The name Propolis is then elevated to the rank of a distinct genus by Corda (Ic. Fung. 2: 38. 1828). The species originally included in Stictis subgenus Propolis was: Stictis (P.) farinosa, S. (P.) versicolor, S. (P.) phacidioides, S. (P.) atrocyanea and S. (P.) hysterina). The names S. farinosa in the nomenclatural type ("that element of the taxon with which the name is permanently associated") of the names Propolis.
The names Propolis versicolor and P. farinosa was established by Fries (Summ. Veg. Scand. 2: 372. 1849). The names P. versicolor is based on Stictis versicolor Fr. 1822. (Syst. Mycol. 2, 1: 198), while P. farinosa is based on Stictis farinosa Pers. 1822 (Mycologia Eur. 2: 339).
If the Propolis versicolor and P. farinosa are considered synonyms, then P. farinosa is the correct name. In Minter (Mycotaxon 87: 43-52. 2003) P. versicolor has been synonymyzed under P. farinosa; however the molecular study of Hustad & Miller (North American Fungi 6, 9: 1-13. 2011) sugegst that two genetically distinct taxa exist.

Alessio

PS: i cans end you the references citated.

Hi Pierotti

wonderful explanation! Are you working on that genus that you can give such precise info?

A question remains for me:  Why has Stictis farinosa priority over S. versicolor, as they were both published in the same year? Minter says fo versicolor 1823, but IF says 1822 as you.

Minter puts also Propolis virids in synonymy with farinosus. However, P. viridis is clearly a different species with much shorter spores. Did anybody publish a redescription of the type of farinosus? It seems that nobody did.

Zotto

Wonderful explanation!
As said Zotto.

Thank you for this response,
Roland

Hi,

just a small correction: Persoon published Stictis farinosa in vol. 1 of his Mycologia europaea.

The reason why Fries' name has priority is maybe explained by the status of his work Systema as nomenclatural starting point. See attached comment in Stafleu.

Regards

Martin

"If the Propolis versicolor and P. farinosa are considered synonyms, then P. farinosa is the correct name.?"

I am not much indebted in this particular case, but looking at it from purely nomenclatural point of view.

Fries in Systema Mycologicum 2 (1822) included both species and both of them are thereby sanctioned.

Under S. farinosa Fries added "Pers. Eur. p. 339". This note makes it clear that Fries had Persoon's Mycologia Europaea, when publishing Systema Mycologicum 2, i.e. S. farinosa was published earlier than S. versicolor, which only appeared in Systema Mycologicum 2.

According to the Code if there are two competing names and the two of them are sanctioned, the one which is published earlier, has priority. I assume therefore that P. farinosa must have priority over P. versicolor.

Regards,
Boris

Hi Boris,

but Fries gives earlier references for versicolor as well.
So if versicolor and farinosa a synonym, the name of Fries should have the priority?

Regards

Martin

Hi Martin,

I am looking to the page from Systema Mycologicum in IndexFungorum and I presume that it is the right one:
http://www.librifungorum.org/Image.asp?ItemID=29&ImageFileName=0198b.jpg?

I do not see earlier reference, connected with Stictis versicolor. Fries wrote "Fries exs. n. 276", but this is not reference to work, where the name was published, but to mere exsiccata possibly distributed by Fries or even kept in his own herbarium.

He also recognizes four varieties, but if you notice, he does not give any names.

So I consider, that Stictis versicolor appears in Syst. Mycol. for the first time. I see no evidence for anything else. But on the same page Fries also lists S. farinosa. This means that those two names are equally sanctioned. But as I said before, from these, S. farinosa is published earlier (although in the same year) by Persoon (we have clear evidence for this as Fries himself cited Persoon's Mycologia Europaea). So, when in Stictis, S. farinosa undoubtedly has priority over S. versicolor.

Here note that as sanctioned names, they must be cited as:
Stictis versicolor Fr. : Fr. (this does not mean that S. versicolor was published earlier by Fries, it means that he published and in the same time sanctioned it in Syst. Mycol.)
S. farinosa Pers. : Fr.

The thing is that not all names of Fries authomatically receive priority over the others. This is situation is clear example for this.

Now we go on.

Later Fries transfered the two names into Propolis in Summa Vegetabilium Scandinaviae on p. 372 in 1849, which is the new combinations were done in the same time (they are also equal here).

However, as it was seen above S. farinosa has priority over S. versicolor. As the new combination were done in the same time by Fries, Propolis farinosa retains its priority over Propolis versicolor.

The rules for priority are sometimes very difficult and perplexed, but I think that in this case, that would be the right decision.

The rule shortly is:
1. If you have two names and one of them sanctioned, the sanctioned name has priority over the one that is not sanctioned.
2. If you have two competing names sanctioned, the priority name is the one, which was published earlier, no matter that it might have not been published first by Fries.


Regards,
Boris

Yes, I agree, I also noticed Fries's reference to Persoon's work. If Fries did not have it as a draft paper to review, Propolis farinosa has priority. The reference toan exact page excludes this possibility.

Is it possible to figure out the approcimate day of publication of these two works?

Zotto

Hi Zotto,

This is a good question really. I do not remember that I have come across this information. Maybe someone else on the forum could help. I will try searching, but I am not really sure. However, what comes to my mind is that it is possible to ask advice from the Nomenclature editor of Mycotaxon, Shaun Pennycook. He is ultimate authority on nomenclature in mycology, so I suppose that he might have come to this information. I will try to get his opinion on this matter and tell the forum if he gets back with answer.

Best regards,
Boris

Some information on the date of publishing of Mycologia Europaea and Systema Mycologicum 2. The paper is about the dates of publishing the Scheinitz's Synopsis. On the page below, see the first paragraph.
http://www.cybertruffle.org.uk/cyberliber/59350/0036/005/0530b.jpg

It seems that Mycologia Europaea is published somewhen in the first half of 1822 and before Schweinitz's Synopsis. Meanwhile the author says that Systema Mycologicum is published later than Schweinits Synopsis, because it is cited there. So, Mycologia Europaea is published apparently much earlier than Systema Mycologicum 2.

Here is the title of the entire paper, which is on Cyberliber:
Rogers, D.P. 1944. On the dates of publication of Schweinitz's Synopses. 36(5): 526-531.
http://www.cybertruffle.org.uk/cyberliber/

This settles the problem with Propolis farinosa and P. versicolor, there is no doubt that P. farinosa is published earlier in 1822. However, I still do not find more detailed dating of the different volumes and parts of Systema Mycologicum and Mycologia Europaea.

Regards,
Boris

Hi Boris,

yes you are right. Fries refers in case of versicolor just to other fungi/varieties published earlier. I do not know what names were given to them there. Hard to check.

Stafleu gives no more exact date of publishing for the Systema than 1822, but narrows it for Persoon's Mycologia europaea 1 to 1st Jan-14th April 1822.

Regards

Martin

Hi Martin,

This is excellent information! I think that it becomes more easy even with those approximate dates. To be honest, I would expect such important works to be dated well, but I do not find more detailed infomation on Systema Mycologicum too.

Best regards,
Boris

Hi Boris,

I think I found a good example in the Vienna Code (attached, see Ex. 4) that shows that Persoon's farinosa should have priority.

Cheers

Martin

Hi Martin,

An excellent example, really, I agree.

Cheers,
Boris

Good discussion! Sorry for my mistake: Persoon published the name Stictis farinosa in the first volume of Mycologia Europaea, dated between 1 January and 14 April 1822 (see picture; from Stafleu & Cowan, 1983). I do not know when the second volume of Systema Mycologicum was published: however, Rogers write: "At present we can be reasonably sure that the Syn. Fung. cAR. appeared after the first part of Persoon's Mycologia Europaea and before the first part of the second volume of Fries's Systema mycologicum" (Mycologia 69, 2: 238. 1977).
Then the name S. farinosa is much older then S. versicolor...to know which is good enough to apply Article dell'ICBN quoted in Martin!

In the attchment you have the work cited by Boris about the dates of publication of Schweinitz's Synopses and the work by Rogers citetd in this message.

Hi Pierotti,

Again excellent information. I didn't know about the second paper of Rogers. Thanks a lot for providing this reference!

Cheers,
Boris

Selon cette discussion, et ce que j'en comprends, la conclusion serait que P. farinosa a priorité sur P. versicolor ?

Roland

Yes, P. farinosa has priority. But I am unaware o a redescription of type material of the two taxa. Possibly no such material exists, but then I miss a neotypification.

Zotto

Thank you Hans et all members !

Roland