DRAFT PROPOSALS FOR DISCUSSION
19 March 2001
D.L. Hawksworth
PROPOSALS TO LIMIT THE FUTURE USE OF A DUAL NOMENCLATURE FOR PLEOMORPHIC FUNGI
Art. 59 has always sat uneasily in the Code,
and is an exception to Principle IV that states that an organism ‘with a
particular circumscription, position, and rank can bear only one correct name’.
Some specialists in anamorphic fungi consistently avoided the use of separate
binary names for anamorphs over 30 years ago, referring to the their generic
name only, for instance as the ‘Stemphylium state of Pleospora herbarum’
(Ellis, 1971). At that time the Article did not cover all situations, and a
major revision was effected at the Sydney Congress in 1981, although not
without opposition (Hawksworth & Sutton, 1973, 1974) as numerous name
changes then became necessary for well-known economically important species in
genera such as Aspergillus and Penicillium. Improvements in detail have
been made since that time, but the provision has not been radically changed
since that time.
With the advent of molecular tools, it became evident in the early 1990s that fungi
known only by their anamorphs could be placed unequivocally in teleomorph
genera in the absence of any sexual state. This led to calls to the Tokyo
Congress of 1993 to delete the whole Article (Reynolds & Taylor, 1991:
Reynolds, 1993) which although having a sound scientific base would have led to
yet more changes in names or require extensive lists of proposals for names to
be conserved or rejected.
The logic of Reynolds & Taylor’s approach has been reinforced by the subsequent
exponential growth of molecular studies. Reflecting on the arguments and data
resulting from two different international symposia focussing on the impacts
and integration of molcular systematics in fungi, Seifert &al. (2000)
recommended the use of anamorph generic names as
nouns in a decapitalized and non-italicized manner where they were known to be
polyphyletic or paraphyletic. In the same work, Cannon & Kirk (2000)
reiterated the call to delete Art. 59, which they regarded as enevitable in the
long-term.
The issue has been how to achieve a rational approach and return to the one-organism one-name
principle without plunging the nomenclature of pleomorphic fungi into chaos.
The set of proposals made here aims to do that by: (1) restricting the
application of the current Art. 59 to names published before 1 January 2007;
(2) utilzing teleomorph epitypes to fix the interpretation of names typified
only by anamorphic material when teleomorphs are subsequently discovered; and
(3) recommending the informal use of generic names to indicate anamorphs for
all pleomorphic fungi, including those published before that date.
(XX1) Insert after ‘(teleomorph),’ in Art. 59.1:
‘prior to 1 January 2007 (see Art. 59.7)’.
(XX2) Insert after ‘binary name’ in Art. 59.2:
‘published before 1 January 2007 (see Art. 59.7)’.
(XX3) Insert after ‘the name’ in the first line
of Art. 59.3: ‘if published before 1 January 2007 (see Art. 59.7)’.
(XX4) Insert after ‘type’ in the first line of
Art. 59.4: ‘published before 1 January 2007 (see Art. 59.7)’.
(XX5) Insert after ‘names’ in Art. 59.5: ‘introduced before 1 January 2007
(see Art. 59.7)’.
(XX6) Insert in Note 1 after ‘available,’: and
prior to 1 January 2007 (see Art. 59.7)’.
(XX7) Insert at the start of Art. 59.6: ‘Prior
to 1 January 2007 (see Art. 59.7)’.
(XX8) Add a new Art. 59.7: ‘For names published
after 1 January 2007, the correct name covering the holomorph (Art.59.1) is the earliest legitimate name whether
typified by an element representing the teleomorph or the anamorph. Separate
binary names for anamorphs where the teleomorph is known,or of teleomorphs where the anamorph is
named, published after that date are illegitimate (Art. 52.1) and to be rejected’.
(XX9) Insert a new Note 2 below the new Art.
59.7: ‘Where a teleomorph has been discovered for a fungus hitherto known only
as an anamorph, an epitype with the teleomorph may be designated for that
name’.
(X10) Add a new Art. 59.8: ‘In cases covered by
Art. 59.7, where it is considered necessary or desirable to refer to the
anamorph alone, this provision does not prevent the use of informal names not
regulated by this Code (see Rec. 59A) based on the generic names of anamorphs,
provided that those generic names were published prior to 1 January 2007’.
(X11) Delete all the existing text in Rec. 59A.
(X12) Insert a new Rec. 59A.1: ‘Where it is
considered necessary or desirable, anamorphs with no legitimate name or linked
to a teleomorph after 1 January 2007 should be referred to informally without
the use of a binary name.
(X13) Add a new Ex. 59A.1: ‘The >Stemphylium anamorph of Pleospora herbarum (Fr.) Rabenh. ex Ces.
& De Not. 1863 should be referred to as: Pleospora herbarum (Stemphylium
anamorph), P. herbarum (stemphylium
state), Stemphylium state of P. herbarum, stemphylium state of P.
herbarum, etc., rather than as S. botryosum Wallr. 1833.
(X14) Insert a new Rec. 59A.2: ‘Authors wishing
to refer to anamorphs, whether or not they have formal names published before 1
January 2007, should follow the practice advocated in Rec. 59A.1’.
(X15) Add a new Ex. 59A.2: ‘Although the binary
name Penicillium dodgei Pitt 1980 has
been validly published for the anamorph of Eupenicillium
brefeldianum (B. O. Dodge) Stolk & D. B. Scott 1967, the anamorph of E. brefeldianum
is better referred to as, for example, E. brefeldianum (penicillium
anamorph).
|
BCCMTM/MUCL - (AGRO)INDUSTRIAL FUNGI
& YEASTS COLLECTION