(36) CORRESPONDENCE

or have youpicked up ahandful ofdirt? unknown, have youdiscovered 500newspecies ofathousandsequences species,half ofthem substrate inyour hand that contains DNA when youhave a 2. In ecology, modern species to befound? species, orsimply indicates that there arenew is whetherthis processactually new discovers than conventional . My question of contemporary speciesdiscovery...” rather isclearly the majorarena molecular ecology 1. Asstated byHibbett etal. (2011),“... andtaxonomy. elements are below: italics) toquoted Responses integration ecology (in ofmolecular description Here,species isadopted. Iaddress someofthe question quality. andpaints picture TheEditorial ableak ecologists trivializes future of the workthe ofmolecular of taxonomy ifsequ and the role ofthe more questionsraises than itanswers, concerning the nature ofdiscovery, the minimum species, todescribe that evidence required be should A recent in Editorial role oftheICN(aresponsetoSeifert) More thanahandfulofdirt:sequence-basedspeciesdescriptionandthe who could consultwho could relevant monographs thenmight reach out toataxonomist their closest relatives.ecologist The insequences aphylogenetic tree toseek a bioinformatics toplacethe tool new universe, would employ the ecologist In that alternate ecology? molecular taxonomy and fungal between if there loop was arobust feedback discovered. that have any species new been ends,process without adetermination is databases. This usually where the sequencesinnew publicly-accessible 2005),anddeposittheir& Knight UniFrac such as tools (Loupozone make community comparisons using them ofother tomillions sequences, a bioinformatics that pipeline compares the through sequences feed sequencing, oramplicon metagenomics shotgun record metadata, extract perform DNA, to asampling dirt, locality, collect They travelpick up ofdirt. ahandful notsimply does ecologist A molecular description. sufficient information to warrant formal (orsequences specimens) provide It isadifferent questionask if to specimens. wellas as of sequences throughdiscover species analyses new aware that itexists. It to ispossible To “discover” something istobecome How the research might proceed International Code ofNomenclature for McNeill algae, fungi, andplants (ICN; etal. IMA FungusIMA description 2017)iscritical species (Seifert ofsequence-based (Hawksworth in the sequences. genetic inferred insomeway byinformation inherent to the specific unknowns, unless canbe they orbehaviour attributabledifferential ecology characters other than nucleotides, there is no dirt really the change areno picture? There the same DNAinadifferent handful of knowledge that someoneelse has detected that Doesthe youhave madeadiscovery. with inhand clear it aspecimen seems 4. Whether orahundred, it isonespecimen Iwould say not. in the itself? sequence new information that isnotalready inherent 3. Doesthe actofnaming provide asequence description. is notinherent in amorphological naming provides information new that just ifthe wellask act of might as information). lineage One (including ataxonomic hypothesisembodies just aDNA whereas sequence, aname ADNA is sequence species. a new have thinksthey someone discovered communicates the information that I wouldsay Theactof yes. naming Tripp & Lendemer 2012). (Kirkcryptodigmaticus 2012;but see by the publication valid of material, demonstrated as type as serve their then ofdirt handful that could had saved of aportion the ecologist However, specimen. a physical type if discoveries, donothave they because unablewould be name tovalidly their the current ofnomenclature rules they description but species, under new as warrantsome ofthe sequences new At that decide somepoint, might they thatspecies have described. been already discovered correspond sequences to whether tocheck sequences the newly herbaria orculture toobtain collections specimens request from team might distributions. formed newly This andgeographic including ecology, taxa, for information about unsequenced s raised in andoffer the amore Editorial optimistics raised vision Piromyces based onafew DNAsequences? a speciesbased andaspecies onone specimen 5. Is there any between similarity conceptual actively what as someperceive discouraging) historical practise 6. Doesadouble standard where exist, our si herring. isa This red Theconceptual invisible.that be otherwise might insequence hand, the picture has details Withof the anenvironmental species. make aninference about the ecology tipa root then itmay to possible be on soilandthe comesfrom sequence the specimen isamushroom growing and source material. For example, if includingsequence, sampling locality derivedbe from metadata about the can andbiogeography about ecology attributes. physiological as Information in theare specimen, notobservable such characteristics topredict it possible that Thephylogenyof the species. may make concerning phylogenetic relationships the provides sequence information Moston the specimen. importantly, that canaugment information based the may sequence provide insights threatened, because by this knowledge, not in hand delighted, be should The who taxonomist has the specimen that discovered. the was already species the change picture.does First, itmeans represented by the specimen in hand the sameDNA detected has already Yes, that the knowledge else someone answer to the other. notautomaticallyone does inform the not equivalent questions. Theanswer to material. Theseare the as type can serve and(2)whetherobservation, sequences onasingle based described be should different (1)whether issues: a species question This naming. conflates two nature ofevidence that justifies formal the nature, most general concerning the 2012) as anenforcer 2012)as oftaxonomic milarity, tothe extent there isone,of et al. [sic] allows(butisnow 2016). The Editorial 2016).TheEditorial ence-based forthe IMA CORRESPONDENCE (37) It is It by De by et al. (2016). et al. hen should we describe species? we describe hen should The answer to the question the posed question the in to The answer taxonomists Editorialthat of the is title they species should describe whenever based on the it is warranted that think taxonomists Different hand. at evidence for standards different will have species justifies that evidence might insist author One description. on several and multi-gene collections coalescent Bayesian phylogenies with a that think may analyses. Another molecularsingle without specimen happy may be third A is sufficient. data sequences, environmental multiple with and phylogenetic metadata by up backed analyses, as proposed per the for sequence-based Recommendations Hawksworth by typification ICN the would (2016). Currently, to formally authors first two the permit which would hypotheses, their name of priority, protection the receive then not have would author third the but on scientific option. This borders that the with and is inconsistent chauvinism, ICN, which never of the has principles of evidence required nature dictated the for species description. discovered – within the groups on groups the – within discovered which they specialize should (they Theythen this). already bewould doing species only the for whichname they For evidence. is adequate there think see thoughtful (not an example, the of allat or trivial) banal description sequentia Hawksworthiomyces Beer In a different Editorial, James & James (2017)Seifert Editorial, a different In trend of documenting current the “After wrote fungi of unknown biodiversity massive the and describing of finding work hard the subsides, must begin in earnest.” unknowns these unlikely that research in fungal in research molecular that unlikely ecology soon. is going anytime subside to keep coming, are to The data going and with technology, sequencing in improvements they will only become and more richer would be foolish to wait for It informative. molecular ecology before launching to subside fungal effortsdiversity to document major hard is and specimens. There cultures with to be all done in work realms organismal of and culture- specimen- mycology, including and molecular systematics, based taxonomy, molecular ecology. will The benefits greatest separate of traditionally if members result 10. W In my view, the function of the of the function the view, my In I believe, is that likely, is more What description based on singledescription collections, would bealthough consistent that assurance as a role a “quality with mechanism”. for valid terms ICNthe is to dictate not to assure of names, publication “Quality” fungal in accuracy. taxonomic editors by is “enforced” taxonomy scientific the and by and reviewers, of authors particularly community, taxonomic monographs and other disapprove taxonomists If compilations. they of sequence-based species, then their from them should exclude monographs However, and checklists. should not rulesthe of nomenclature formalizing from workers other prohibit basedhypotheses on sequences as valid of priority. protection the with names same reasoning, the By ICN the should species not prohibit description based require on a single (or specimen sequence data). paranoid. does I this sound Yes, will we see a that it is unlikely think flood if machine-generatednames of is sequence-based species description case, even if some any permitted. In decidedrogue to bioinformatician names spurious with floodthe literature pipeline, an automated by created would experts monographers and other no obligation to adopt them be under (although to deal with they would have rogues The wouldthem). be ostracized, would benefit h-indices although their (don’t all publishedfrom the criticism get ideas, Henrik). any if sequence-based species description taxonomists more was permitted then would begin for databases to screen sequences representing environmental species new – both and previously What does it take to raise species description species description raise to take does it 9. What be could that above trivia above banality, or by a machine? child by any extracted in fungal taxonomy machine Do we want seems this biology? one perspective From and, question from another, a paranoid like both prescient. If DNA sequences comprise step type, and the is a short it description the describes automatically that a pipeline to The question as species. OTUs and names the species description of machine-automated be we should Surely face. us in the is staring it? discussing ty of species description

taxa that test the limits of the of the limits the test taxa that [sic] This is a slippery statement. It is This is a slipperystatement. is being clear what not entirely implication the recommended, but ICN the should accept to beseems that asa role a taxonomic quality control continue mechanism, and, one infers, sequence-based speciesto prohibit author the that I presume description. ICN the is not trying to suggest that on speciesshould add a prohibition See vs. single (5) regarding specimens The speciessequences in description. journals many” “so suggestion that on papers to publish” up “lining are is sequence-based species description casual most the an exaggeration. Even that shows literature perusal of current sequence-based species descriptions (perhaps rare because extremely are ICN), the while under they invalid are is speciesspecimen-based description stronger than ever. Yes, there is a double standard. A species is a double standard. there Yes, a single only from collection known can be validly type named, if the even no observable has specimen characters other any it from differentiate that species, been has reduced or to dust, any by a species known but lost, even environmental of independent number be cannot metadata, sequences, with this validly of The absurdity named. will becomedouble standard all the as evident techniques asmore such single-cell genomics become more widely used ecological in studies. VOLUME 9 · NO. 1 Quality may not need to be legislated in the in the be legislated to not need 8. Quality may be enforced; to needs still is a but it there ICN, tendency use the to strong mycologists among The mechanism. ICN as a quality assurance to accept this. have the ICN of framers ICN? 7. Are the limitations of what we can we of what limitations the 7. Are species from a DNA about a determine we can what sequence more severe than we have about a species when determine one specimen? are so many If not, why only species allow single to reluctant journals on morphology, based descriptions but lining papers on DNA controversial publish to up defines using a new technology?using low quality species descriptions with an old old an with low quality species descriptions technology, some would what preventing while consider a higher quali (38) CORRESPONDENCE

& Lücking 2018).There are, however, have named (Hawksworth been sofar around ofwhich of fungi 120–140000 that there species are 2.2–3.8million descriptions.not provide morphological volume, year, numbers, but andpage does to the author’s name(s) andthe journal about itisoften individual confined species, now, information somewebsites give though thatbooks are mostly inaccessible. Asof are in described variousspecies journals and because is This thenew biologists. general involved in research, taxonomic but also help those tonotonly scientists whoare were provided then also ofgreat itwouldbe In reduced. be ifphotomicrographs, fact, andsynonymya lotofredundancy could then web portal, available in adedicated If great service. suchbe information were ofcost, onEarthfree itwould species fungal description ofany particular morphological information through the internet about the ofcost.free In the sameway, ifwe get identification taxonomic for molecular database, accessible through internet of different available in NCBI species the We have data sequence somemolecular descriptions ofalltypespecimensfungi Need foraWeb Portaltomaintaininformationonmorphological ZW, Beer De Marincowitz, Duong TA, Kim REFERENCES Paul Kirk forcomments onthis response. toHenrikI amgrateful Nilsson, and Martin Ryberg, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS purity at the costdisciplinary ofprogress. not reinforce divisions that historical maintain promote integrative approaches in mycology, from the other. Theleaders should of IMA the closer together. grouphas much Each tolearn communities taxonomic andecological fungal description has the also potential todraw the species (Hibbett etal.2016).Sequence-based al. “Topupdated 50most wanted” (Nilsson list Bioinformatics like tools, the dynamically consortium. exemplified by UNITE the research communities work together, as 2016), will promote the needed integration promote the 2016),will needed The latestbest estimate suggests Hawksworthiomyces MJ (2016) Wingfield A, JJ, Rodrigues gen. nov. gen. (Ophiostomatales et et ), only bibliographic andnomenclatural bibliographic only (MycoBank, Index Fungorum) provide duplications. At present, somewebsites known offungi species onearth toavoid description type ofall on morphological toprovide informationfor aweb portal or existing Hence genera. there isaneed synonyms toother orwere new redisposed manyto it; were either found tobe out names of166species attributed tothis belonging accept 43species only Massarina by Aptroot to him (1998)led pyrenocarpous ascomycete genus (Aptroot 1995b). being synonyms ofthose seven species in Didymosphaeriaspecies seven only andheaccepted other genera, transferrednames, had been 100species to has more than names. Ofthese 550species ascomycete genus Didymosphaeria, named. Aptroot the (1995a)monographed toinformationaccessibility onthose already the be lackof naming could species new One ofthe reasons forsynonymy when have times.species several described been Index Fungorum, indicating that many perhaps around names 260000species in Hawksworth DL, Hibbett DS, Kirk PM, Lücking R. Hawksworth Kirk Lücking HibbettPM, DS, R. DL, H L Ki J ames TY, K(2017)Description Seifert of oupozone C, Knight R(2005)UniFrac: Knight oupozone C, anew ibbett D,ibbett Abarenkov U, Kõljalg K, Chai ÖpikM, rk PM(2012)Nomenclatural novelties. Similarly, aworld of another revision (2016) (308–310)P Fungal Biology environmental nucleic (ENAS). acidsequences how toname known novel taxa from only on illustrates foradecision the urgency names Taxon offungi. of to permit the use types ofDNA as sequences Fungorum 109: 361– of the “Top 50most wanted Bifiguratus adelaidae 71:8228– Microbiology Communities. phylogenetic method forcomparing Microbial 1049– and identification of Fungi. classification (2016)Sequence-based DM Walker Porras-Alfaro DM, Taylor A, JW, Geiser Smyth C, C, Schoch Nilsson R, Oono RH, K, T, Kirk Herr P, JR, Lueschow O’Donnell S, B, ColeJ, Wang Q, Crous P, V, Robert Helgason 1068. 1:– 362 120:1323–1340. Applied andEnvironmental 1. roposals toamend 8 Art. roposals : The hunt ends forone 65:899– 8235. – several 100 –several Mycologia Fungi 900. .”. Mycologia which which 108: Index Index

help in solving some identification problems the species. samenew when differentredundancy workers describe can result in duplication ofwork and foraccessing difficulty information retrieval prohibitively expensive forindividuals. This pay-by-article options exist, are they journals, e-subscriptions andwhile and subscribing toeven the core mycological increases, andmany have libraries stopped dueto steep price difficult is increasingly Access current tooriginal journal articles text rather than copiesofprinted pages. found, perhaps tobe needs by loading major constraint, andaway around this andjournals stillbooks in copyright isa publications where that ispermitted. establishing hyperlinks tooriginal and Index Fungorum isgradually otherdeposit material, illustrations, such as MycoBank forauthors to has afacility description available. isalso In addition, or January diagnosis 2013the associated from 1 mandatory names became fungal since thealthough registration ofnew information about most species, individual McNeill V, Demoulin Buck J, WR, Barrie FR, Tripp forbinding Lendemer (2012)Request JC EA, K(2017)When we should describeSeifert species? Nilsson Wurzbacher RH, Bahram Coimbra M, C, Though molecular tools are of great are of tools molecular Though Including copiesofmaterial from Gr Neocallimastigaceae and Piromyces cryptodigmaticus with onthedecisions descriptive statements associated FungusIMA 8:37–39. wanted MycoKeys fungi. Larsson E, VRM, 154.] Ko Australia, July 2011. International Botanical Congress Melbourne, (Melbourne Code) adopted bythe Eighteenth of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, andplants Biology Department, Clark University,Biology euter W, etal.(2012)International Code Mortierella sigyensis nigstein: Koeltz Scientific Books. nigstein: Worcester, 01610,USA MA et al. axon ). Ta ([email protected]) [Regnum Vegetabile No. (2016) Top 50most 12:29–40. (fungi: Mortierellaceae (fungi:

61: 886–888. David Hibbett (fungi: (fungi: IMA FUNGUS ) CORRESPONDENCE (39) The IMA Fungus IMA Fungus ., eds): ([email protected]) V. Venkateswara Sarma Venkateswara V. (Heitman J, et al J, (Heitman 21: Biodiversity and Conservation Kalapet, Pondicherry-605014, India Kalapet, Pondicherry-605014, Department of Biotechnology, SchoolDepartment of Life Sciences, Pondicherry University, of Life University, Sciences, Pondicherry of fungi: and molecular studies tropical are robust to a more contributing approaches estimate? 2425–2433. revisited: 3.8 million 2.1 to species. In: KingdomFungal DC: Society American for 79–95. Washington Microbiology. (MyCoPortal). Collections Portal 8: (65)–(66). Hawksworth DL (2012) Global species numbers DL Global (2012) species numbers Hawksworth diversity DL, R (2018) Fungal Lücking Hawksworth Mycology ST (2017) The Bates AN, Miller

ymosphaeria assarina 37: 1–160. Did (ascomycetes). (ascomycetes). 50: 9–18. Studies in MycologyStudies Didymosphaeria Didymosphaeria 66: 89–162. Hedwigia ). Nova (ascomycetes). (ascomycetes). excluded from from excluded 60: 325–379. Hedwigia Nova ( collections. for genetic resource implications in MycologyStudies Aptroot A(1998) A world revision of M A world A(1998) Aptroot diversity DL and its (2004) Fungal Hawksworth This letter is based on a paper presented at the at is basedThis letter presented on a paper Biology: on “Fungal conference national Recent University the held at Prospects” and Future Trends 2017. 16–17 November on India Jammu, of Jammu, A monograph A (1995a) of Aptroot Redisposition A (1995b) of some species Aptroot International Mycological Association Mycological Association International logicalwould be the body how to consider an initiative. such to facilitate

This vision of a web vision of a Thisportal to access only around 17 % of the known fungi are known 17 % of the only around fungal in isolated and available genetic 2004, collections (Hawksworth resource should to be made attempts 2012). More the fungi, in and sequence more isolate but case of described species it is necessary to be also by able to being identities of their sure sequences Until original accounts. the access fungi, for all will available we are known on morphological to rely features continue for identification. and photomicrographs of the descriptions type of all specimens fungal species needs to be based could on the perhaps be realized. It model,which from links data MyCoPortal & Bates (Miller worldwide 84 institutions to descriptions not restricted is 2017) but of type specimens. The and illustrations VOLUME 9 · NO. 1