Talk:Nolanea

Validity of the genus name Nolanea

Present-day mycologists generally consider Nolanea to be only a subgenus of Entoloma and not a genus in its own right. This is the classification given by Index Fungorum.

All valid synonyms have a page in Index Fungorum, but also a current classification is indicated except for some obscure cases, generally where the definition is unclear or the relevant contributors have not had time to do the taxonomic work. Firstly the Nolanea genus page states that the current name is Entoloma. Secondly, the basionym page gives the type species as Nolanea pascua and the page for that gives the current name as Entoloma pascuum. By searching on name = "Nolanea" one can find species for which Nolanea is still given as the current name, but that does not mean that it is a real genus according to Species Fungorum. These species are ones for which the combination with Entoloma has not been defined; in the case of the old ones, this is probably because the original definitions are unclear. New such species are ones defined by mycologists Aime, T.W. Henkel and Largent (who do support the use of Nolanea as a genus), and for which combinations with Entoloma have not yet been defined.

So according to Index Fungorum, Nolanea is not a current genus, but rather a subgenus (or "tribu"). I tried to explain this on the article page, but my changes were largely reverted. It is not accurate to state "Nolanea is a genus of ... mushrooms ..." since it is considered a lower-level taxon by most mycologists.

The current photo is of an unknown Nolanea, which is OK, but a photo of the type species, Entoloma pascuum, would do just as well.

Strobilomyces (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

And the statement "As of April 2016, Index Fungorum accepts 20 species of Nolanea" is misleading and wrong. It is the ITIS catalogue of life which is given by the reference and which recognizes Nolanea as a genus. But ITIS recognizes Entoloma pascuum not Nolanea pascua, so it is not consistent. The situation is caused by downloading partial information from Index Fungorum, but the resulting supposed genus is nonsense. If Nolanea is a genus, Nolanea pascua must be part of it. The Nolanea names in ITIS are either (1) old unclear names which were defined as Nolanea and no-one wants to use any more or (2) new names by Aime, T.W. Henkel and Largent who still want to use Nolanea and for which the Entoloma combination has not yet been defined. But Nolanea claviformis is already updated to Entoloma claviforme in Species Fungorum; doubtless it will eventually get downloaded to ITIS too.

Strobilomyces (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Nolanea is now considered by modern taxonomic authorities as a subgenus of Entoloma. As such, the article has been reworded to reflect this downgrade in taxon rank. Loopy30 (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)