Talk:Russula adusta
Add topicLatest comment: 1 year ago by Esculenta in topic Splitting proposal
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The content of Russula nigricans was merged into Russula adusta on 13 February, 2024. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Splitting proposal
[edit]Russula adusta and Russula nigricans are two different species according to modern classification. One year ago the two articles were merged without discussion. I propose to split them bak. See links to databases in Wikispecies and scientific sources. For example here they are mentioned as two different species 178.157.144.132 (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Great Russian Encyclopedia and this [Переведенцева Л.Г. Определитель (агарикоидные базидиомицеты): Учебное пособие. Москва: Товарищество научных изданий КМК. 2015] fungi guide for micologist students discribe them as two different too--178.157.144.132 (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Esculenta: Thoughts here? - UtherSRG (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- Index Fungorum records them as synonymous, so I can see where the impetus came to merge them, but recent literature, particularly this doi:10.3767/persoonia.2023.51.04
{{doi}}: unflagged free DOI (link) indicates they are distinct species. MycoBank also has them as distinct species. IF also suggests that the name Russula nigricans is illegitimate, but I guess other taxonomists may not have the same opinion, so it seems to be a mess that will require some literature digging to sort out. Esculenta (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- Index Fungorum records them as synonymous, so I can see where the impetus came to merge them, but recent literature, particularly this doi:10.3767/persoonia.2023.51.04