Skip to main content
ARS Home » Research » Publications at this Location » Publication #81510


item Rossman, Amy
item Samuels, Gary

Submitted to: Taxon
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 2/15/1998
Publication Date: N/A
Citation: N/A

Interpretive Summary: Scientific names are the means for communication in biology about organisms. A set of rules governs the use of scientific names and contributes to the stability of these names. One of these rules states that the correct scientific name to be used must be the one that was published first. However, on occasion, it is discovered that an obscure, unknown scientific name was published prior to a widely known name. Rathe than change the well-known scientific name, that name can be conserved by writing a proposal to do so and having that proposal accepted by a body of governing scientists. This paper proposes to conserve the well-known name of a fungus that belongs to the Hypocreales, a group of fungi important to agriculture.

Technical Abstract: Nectriopsis was established for four species of hypocrealean fungi including N. violacea, the lectotype. Samuels recognized 43 species in Nectriopsis. Following an exmination of the type specimens of hypocrealean genera, three older generic names have been uncovered, all of which are proposed for rejection in favor of Nectriopsis. The genus Chrysogluten was sdescribed as a lichen in its own family, Chrysoglutenaceae. Two species were included: C. biasolettianum and C. cesatii with C. biasolettianum as the generic lectotype. Spegazzini described Dimerosporiella based solely on D. paulistana, now considered a synonym of Nectriopsis leucorhodina. Dasyphthora was established in the Hypocreaceae with only one species, D. lasioderm, based on Nectria lasioderma. This species was included in the monograph of Nectriopsis, however, its role as the type of Dasyphthora was not recognized. The three older generic names proposed for rejection are obscure; each has only one or two species. If Nectriopsis is not conserved, most or all of the 43 names now placed in Nectriopsis will have to be changed. Conservation of Nectriopsis over the three earlier generic names will permit the continued use of the species names already placed in Nectriopsis.