Talk:Neoboletus luridiformis

A COMMON BOLETE
Still needs a lot of work.Luridiformis (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please revision image
The image Neoboletus luridiformis 2020 G2.jpg to me looks not to correct and I suggest to review, correct or eliminate 2A01:598:C846:E653:3DA5:1655:28ED:2005 (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Name change?
Can someone provide a citation for the name change to Neoboletus praestigator and also add to the article the reason for the name change. Is this, in fact, valid - I'm not seeing this name being used in other sources. If this isn't a validly published name, that name needs to be excised from the article and the text changed back to Neoboletus luridiformis. If this is a valid name change, then the article title needs to be changed to reflect the new consensus name. Peter G Werner (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It is sometimes used, as far as I know it was published in Index Fungorum by Vizzini in 2016 but with no details given. I tried checking Species Fungorum and weirdly it has both Neoboletus luridiformis and Neoboletus praestigiator as current names. Considering the names listed I'm wondering if it has something to do with the paper deliminating Neoboletus xanthopus as a separate species and considering Neoboletus junquilleus/pseudosulphureus just a variety of Neoboletus luridiformis/praestigiator. But I am no expert here. Lunruj (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)