Notable Historical Databases of Fungal Names
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
MycoLens is a section in IMA Fungus introduced for historical or topical commentaries and observations of potential interest to a wide range of mycologists, but which fall outside the scope of other sections of the journal. Notable historical databases of fungal names MYCOLENS Ronald H. Petersen1 and David L. Hawksworth2, 3, 4 1Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-1100, USA; corresponding author e-mail: [email protected] 2Department of Life Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, SW7 5BD London, UK 3Departamento de Biología Vegetal II, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Plaza Ramón y Cajal, Madrid 28040, Spain 4Comparative Plant and Fungal Biology, Jodrell Laboratory, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Surrey, TW9 3DS, UK Abstract: Present-day electronic databases of fungal names are 21st century versions of previous compilations for the same purpose. The comprehensive indices attached to books by Persoon and Fries summarized names known at those times. Later compilations appeared piecemeal in journals or free-standing, always improving but hardly available for “rapid retrieval.” Twentieth century Index of Fungi required tedious data entry from thousands of journals over many years, but the result could later be inserted into electronically retrievable computer programs. Index Fungorum includes data harvested from Index of Fungi, but perhaps its major source has been Saccardo’s Sylloge Fungorum, probably the most prodigious compilation of the 19th–20th century. Names for lichen-forming fungi were gleaned from the catalogues of Zahlbruckner and Lamb. The role of the Commonwealth Mycological Institute, its predecessors and its successors, has been significant. Key words: compilations, nomenclators, name registration, Index Fungorum. INTRODUCTION PRE-1900 fungorum species in D.C.H. Persoonii Synopsi Methodica Fungorum … dated 1808 (but Among the several definitions of the term Even the “founding fathers” of mycological bound in with the reprint edition of the “database,” two parameters seem almost taxonomy had access to and studied Synopsis; Johnson Reprint Corporation, universal: data must be arranged for rapid previous floristic studies which included 1952), acted as an early database to retrieval and the instrument for retrieval is names for fungi. To be sure, written fungal names treated by Persoon. Taken the computer. While “computer” is open descriptions in several prior works on together, they constituted the first such to only limited interpretation, “rapid” is fungi were less than fastidious (by modern comprehensive offering dealing with fungal certainly a relative term. “Rapid retrieval” standards), but some of the more influential names since the time of Linnaeus (1753) two centuries ago might be currently works were well-illustrated. Petersen (1976a, (Jarvis 2007). judged intolerably slow. Nonetheless, 1977a, b, c, 1983a, b, c) dissected some The proliferation of plant names, using nothing more than mental acuity, of these works, drawing attention to how including cryptogams (which included penmanship and type-setting prowess, such authors as Schaeffer, Bolton, Bulliard, fungi), was growing apace. In Germany, cumbersome mycological data has been Sowerby and Fries simply substituted their Christian Gottfried Daniel Nees von presented for “rapid retrieval” for nearly own preferred species epithets for prior Esenbeck (1776–1858) gained respect as two centuries. The intent of this paper is names. The result was a body of names a philosophical and academic botanist. As to outline some of the important sources with checkered histories available to the he used Persoon’s Synopsis, he ventured his of organized mycological data on fungal “founding fathers,” who, together with own system of arrangement and logic on names over the years leading to our current attempting to submit fungi to philosophical the fungi, and in 1816–1817 published state. systems, sorted the taxa for acceptable Das System der Pilze und Schwämme (Nees For the purposes of this paper, such names. It was the first peristalsis of names von Esenbeck 1816–1817). It appeared compilations (including databases) are since the introduction of Linnaean binomial concurrently with Fries’s Observationes attempts to synthesize or distill previous nomenclature. It would not be the last. Mycologici part I, but was far more data (i.e. monographs, checklists, etc.) Pfister et al. (1990) and Petersen comprehensive. Deeply steeped in Romantic in order to bring together concise data (1975a, b, 1976b, c, 1977c) summarized philosophy, Nees von Esenbeck’s volume (whether fungal names, protologues, host the name-giving, pre-1821 mycological was soon a cornerstone, with significant records or literature citations), but only literature which contributed to the library influence on Fries and others over many the first constitutes a “database” of fungal available to the “founding fathers” years. names. In this way, for example, Fries’s The Synopsis Methodica Fungorum by When still rather young, Elias Magnus Systema Mycologicum is not a database of Christian Hendrik Persoon (1801) was a Fries began writing summaries of the fungal names, but the Index Alphabeticus summary of a taxonomic scheme used to fungi he found in Småland in southern following volume III is such. In the same gather descriptions (and a few illustrations) Sweden (Petersen 1996, Petersen & way, Index Fungorum is a database, but with of all fungi known to Persoon. As such, it Knudsen 2015). First came two editions links to Species Fungorum, which includes did not constitute a “database” but in reality of Observationes Mycologicae (1815, 1818) heterotypic synonymy and suggestion of a was a philosophical treatise with fungi as and during the in-press time for the second “current name.” examples. The Index Botanicus sistens omnes part, the first draft of Systema Mycologicum (28) IMA FUNGUS part 1 was begun. As with Persoon, Fries’ as a very early compendium of fungus names (1829) list from Amherst, MA; Somers’ MYCOLENS Observationes was intended to summarize AFTER the nomenclatural starting point (1882, 1887, 1890, 1891) “Nova Scotia taxa. But in his autobiography, Fries wrote and it therefore took on added importance. fungi,” Peck’s growing contribution “Having learnt by experience that Persoon’s More recent nomenclatural changes have (Vogelenzang 1980–1988), especially system is not sufficient, I began in 1816 to diminished the implications of Steudel’s of fleshy fungi, were all accumulating produce another, and to subject all species “database”. Parenthetically, Steudel’s (1840– over the years. Rogers (1981) mentions to an entirely new investigation” (Fries & 1841) second edition of Nomenclator more. At the end of most numbers of Fries 1955). The Systema was intended to Botanicus did not include cryptogams. the Journal of Mycology (commenced overhaul Persoon’s “Methodicus” and to Shortly after the turn of the 20th century, in 1885) there appeared an “Index of substitute his own (Fries’) “Systema”. Again, several mycological journals from Europe North American mycology,” combining it was a taxonomic treatise embedded in and United States were providing significant fungus names (i.e. Colletotrichum), a philosophical scheme. But Vol. 1 of the pagination for authors intent on describing: authors (i.e. Cobb, N.A.), geography Systema included so many names that (1) taxa (a term not adopted until 1950) (i.e. Colorado myxomycetes) and hosts Fries appended an index, thus offering a putatively new to science; (2) descriptions (i.e. Cranberry, Crataegus). Certainly “database” of hymenomycete names. of life-histories of fungal pathogens, largely the most comprehensive compilation A friend of Nees von Esenbeck, Ernst of plants, agricultural and/or horticultural; of fungus names during these years was Gottlieb Steudel (1783–1856), a physician and (3) descriptions of the mycobiota of Nomenclator Fungorum by Wenceslao and botanist, was struck by the plethora “exotic” regions, including Central and Materno Streinz (1792–1876; Streinz of plant names. Perhaps influenced by South America, Africa, Pacific landmasses 1862). While Streinz may have imposed Nees von Esenbeck, Steudel gathered a and, to a lesser extent, Asia. As it had some taxonomic judgements (Ainsworth compendium of plant names, published in evolved for prior botanists (botany, of 19762), his coverage was thorough. Around 1824 as Nomenclator Botanicus (Steudel course, traditionally included mycology), the same time, Louis (Ludwig) K.G. 1821, 1824). Accepted names and the mycological literature of the day was Pfeiffer (1805–1877) prepared his massive synonyms were included (distinguished becoming nationally and linguistically 1698-page Nomenclator Botanicus of names by type point), and fungi were included: burdened with too many names, too many above the rank of species of all “botanical” part I (Steudel 1821) did not include organisms, exacerbated by thousands of groups published up to the end of 1858 cryptogams, but part II (Steudel 1824) did specimens arriving at famous botanical (Pfeiffer 1873–74); this work is not often so (covering all fungi, including lichen- institutions, usually in western European cited by mycologists but includes, amongst formers). Prominently mentioned in his national capitals, from the far corners other things, usages of generic names and introduction were Fries’ Systema and of the world. National pride as well as indications of type species. While useful, Persoon’s Mycologia