A Nomenclatural Study of Armillaria and Armillariella species

Emel’s concept of Armillaria
Emel’s (1921) thesis on Armillaria poses some interesting nomenclatural
problems. Although this was a thesis, the names contained in it are validly
published (ICBN Art. 29.1), because the thesis was "offered in exchange," at
least to Harvard University (FH), where it was received March 1922, according
to the stamp on the overleaf of the thesis. To ensure its availability, photocopies
of Emel’s entire thesis have been sent to DAOM (Ottawa, Ontario), NY (New
York Botanical Garden) BPI (National Fungus Collection, Beltsville MD) and
WTI (University of Washington Botany Dept.). We know of no other copies, but
assume there is a copy at Université de Strasbourg in France, where Emel earned
his degree.
Emel promoted the idea that the genus Armillaria was artificial and should
be abandoned, that it consisted of species better placed in Tricholoma, Collybia,
Clitocybe, and Pleurotus. He even went so far as to erect or accept four sections,
one in each of these genera, for the anuulate species of Armillaria. But nowhere
does he say Armillaria is rejected. In fact, he described a new species,
Armillaria gilvidula Emel. His key, although qualified, is a key to the genus
Armillaria, and all the species are named in the key as Armillaria species.
The final section of his thesis could be interpreted as moving the species into
other genera. This section could also be interpreted as "alternative classification,"
allowed before 1953 (ICBN Art. 34.2), as was the case in some of Murrill’s
publications (e.g. Murrill 1913, 1914). However, a strict translation and
interpretation of the French (S. Redhead, Y. Dalpé, and M. Lefebvre, DAOM,
Pers. Comm.) reveals that Emel apparently lacked the conviction to actually do
away with the genus Armillaria and thought the species "[. . . should be placed at
some future time]" (" a ranger dans" ; future tense) into these other genera, and
did not actually intend to place them in these other genera. Therefore these
names are not validly published, since ICBN Art. 34.1 says, "A name is not
validly published (a) when it is not accepted by the author in the original
publication;. . . . " Furthermore, Art. 34.1 (b) states, "A name is not validly
published....(b) when it is merely proposed in anticipation of the future
acceptance of the group concerned, or of a particular circumscription, position,
or rank of the group...." The names in these other genera should be considered
provisional combinations and are not validly published. In the following
nomenclatural treatment, these invalidly published combinations are listed under
the appropriate epithet and are labeled as invalid. Fortunately for nomenclatural
purposes, none of the combinations that might be interpreted as new (if
"alternative classification" were to be accepted) creates nomenclatural problems
of which we are aware, since none of these generic placements are currently accepted.
Fungiflora - Armillaria
11