Name usage which is suppressed according to the relevant code of nomenclature. Publ.: Paulet, J.J., 1793. Traité des champignons 2: 1-476 (p. 361, pl. 144:3-4), not seen. Niemelä & Saarenoksa (1989) claim: "In our opinion the species has no name sanctioned at the specific level by Fries (1821). This means that according to the present Code (Greuter et al. 1988) names validly published before 1821 must also be considered. It appears (Donk 1974) that Fungus porcinus Paulet is the oldest available name. However, we wish to refrain from making a new combination until a good type specimen has been selected for it, and to leave the field open to other mycologists.". However Demoulin & al. (1981) do not accept this: "... we do not accept (this) for two reasons. One is that Paulet's index in which the name was introduced was not consistently Linnaean and thus does not meet requirements of valid publication (Art. 23.6.c); for example the species preceding Fungus porcinus is Fungus polyporus perennis. The other is that the publication date of Paulet's Traite des Champignons should not be accepted as 1793 (the title page date) but as 1808.".