1 Reply by Syrphus

  • Syrphus
  • Veteran
  • Offline
  • From: Strathpeffer, Highland
  • Registered: 16-12-2008
  • Posts: 535

Re: Nettle rust mystery

Some months ago I posted a problem about the Nettle rust gall (http://forums.nbn.org.uk/viewtopic.php?id=2127).

I have just spent a long time sorting the dets in the HBRG database to remove errors engendered by the confusion in the Dictionary.  In doing so, I have come on another puzzle.

On advice, I changed all aecial Puccinia on Urtica dioica to: Puccinia urticata TAXON_LIST_ITEM NHMSYS0001431048.  That corresponds to a TVK of NHMSYS0001495762.

In R6, the displayed name reverts to P. urticata var. urticata.

On the Gateway, TVK NHMSYS0001495762 displays Puccinia urticata F. Kern.

P. urticata var. urticata is shown by TVK NHMSYS0001495763.

First question - why, if NBNG and R6 are using the same dictionary, does this discrepancy arise?

Second question - how does one get the binomial stored as the binomial in R6?

M.

Syrphus's Website

2 Reply by charliebarnes

  • charliebarnes
  • Veteran
  • Offline
  • From: Greater Lincolnshire
  • Registered: 07-09-2008
  • Posts: 1,384

Re: Nettle rust mystery

Syrphus wrote:

First question - why, if NBNG and R6 are using the same dictionary, does this discrepancy arise?

There are so many differences between the two, I assume they don't...

Charlie Barnes
Information Officer
Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership

charliebarnes's Website

3 Reply by Syrphus

  • Syrphus
  • Veteran
  • Offline
  • From: Strathpeffer, Highland
  • Registered: 16-12-2008
  • Posts: 535

Re: Nettle rust mystery

I have answered my second question for anyone who is interested.

Use TLIK BMSSYS0000033499.

M.

Syrphus's Website

4 Reply by MikeWeideli

  • MikeWeideli
  • Administrator
  • Offline
  • From: Littlefield Consultancy
  • Registered: 05-07-2006
  • Posts: 2,629

Re: Nettle rust mystery

Nothing is done with the  R6 to the tables supplied by the NHM which would affect the way things are reported. In the case of Puccinia urticata TAXON_LIST_ITEM NHMSYS0001431048 the key is not the preferred key in the  FUNGI&LICHEN British Mycological Society list. In other words in the list it is considered just a synonym of P. urticata var. urticata.  NameServer isn't involved in this instance  so the  recommended name for reporting comes from the preferred name


If you look at TLI key NHMSYS0001431048 in R6 you will see that the preferred_name  ( which is a TLI Key)  is NHMSYS0001431059.

I am not in a position to say whether this is right or wrong, but that is the way the NHM tables reflects the position.

Mike Weideli

MikeWeideli's Website

5 Reply by Syrphus

  • Syrphus
  • Veteran
  • Offline
  • From: Strathpeffer, Highland
  • Registered: 16-12-2008
  • Posts: 535

Re: Nettle rust mystery

Thanks, Mike.  I follow all this, and maybe did not explain as well as I should.  I am really only interested at the moment in the practical aspect (which I have solved to my satisfaction), and I suppose the inconsistency I see is that when the P urt urt map is displayed, there is no indication that the taxon P. urtica TAXON_KEY --1466350 is included in it.  I find it very strange in any case that a binomial should be included in a trinomial.  Most people would be happy seeing the reverse, but the logic of this defeats me - and would even where the underlying taxonomy was a lot simpler than here.  Solving that problem, and the mass of others that affect particularly galls in all taxon groups, is not my task (thank goodness).

M.

Syrphus's Website

6 Reply by MikeWeideli

  • MikeWeideli
  • Administrator
  • Offline
  • From: Littlefield Consultancy
  • Registered: 05-07-2006
  • Posts: 2,629

Re: Nettle rust mystery

I agree it does seem strange.   It does seem to be in line  with the British Mycological Society check list of fungi. http://www.fieldmycology.net/GBCHKLST/gbchklst.asp?RecordID=%22%22

Puccinia urticata is not in this list a valid name.

Mike Weideli

MikeWeideli's Website