Skip to main content
ARS Home » Research » Publications at this Location » Publication #210567

Title: Naming pleomorphic fungi – the debate on how to deal with Article 59 of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature

Author
item REDHEAD, SCOTT - OTTAWA, CANADA
item Rossman, Amy

Submitted to: Inoculum
Publication Type: Abstract Only
Publication Acceptance Date: 4/30/2007
Publication Date: 6/10/2007
Citation: Redhead, S., Rossman, A.Y. 2007. Naming pleomorphic fungi – the debate on how to deal with Article 59 of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. Inoculum.

Interpretive Summary:

Technical Abstract: Fungi are the only living organisms that are legitimately permitted by any Code of Nomenclature to bear multiple Latin scientific binomial names. This convention is rooted in the historical treatment of fungal names before their life-cycles were fully understood. It has been allowed to continue because it is still extremely difficult to precisely match morphological forms with others expressed by the same holomorph, and, at the generic level, to recognize as congeneric taxa that may not resemble each other morphologically. The advent of phylogenetic analyses of fungi using DNA-DNA sequence comparison independent of phenetic morphological comparisons has re-opened the door on the methodology for describing and naming fungi with multiple morphologies. Molecular based phylogenies now allow mycologists to directly compare and confidently place morphologically dissimilar taxa leading to the recognition of or confirming previous suspicions of conspecificity or other close relationships. However, with over 250 years of historical names, agreed upon rules for naming and describing different morphological forms (anamorphs, teleomorphs), and a lack of consensus or alternatives, mycologist face the dilemma of trying to standardize the naming of fungi in line with other sciences, without creating chaos. The issue is so divisive amongst mycologists that it served as the lightning rod for debate at the 8th International Mycological Congress (IMC8) on whether to abandon completely the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN). Previous discussions at IMC7 resulted in roposals to change ICBN Art. 59, which deals with names for pleomorphic fungi, e published by David Hawksworth. Changes were made to ICBN Art. 59 at the 17th International Botanical Congress, based upon these suggestions, and epitypification of anamorph names by teleomorphs is now permitted. However, this action has not yet been tested and several published recommendations were sent to a Special Committee assigned to draw up recommendations for the next IBC. This Committee is now examining all of Art. 59 as well as the outstanding previously published proposals.