ONE FUNGUS = WHICH NAME ? The special provisions that permitted a link to this through the CBS home-page Fungi (NCF) or ICTF; those discussions asexual morphs of the same species of to Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/pl are also summarized below. pleomorphic non-lichenized ascomycete aylist?list=PLF8BF8F71D5A3AEDC). It REPORTS and basidiomycete fungi to have separate was gratifying that 220 mycologists watched In addition to the formal parts of the names from that of the whole fungus, the proceedings via the videolink while they symposium, two new books were formally which was typified by a sexual morph, were in progress, and that since the meeting launched at a cocktail party on the first were ended at the International Botanical there had been hundreds of downloads of evening. John W. Taylor (IMA President) Congress in Melbourne in July 2011. presentations at the time this issue went to was presented with copies of the Ta xonomic These changes, that are embodied in press. This means that hundreds of individual Manual of the Erysiphales (Powdery Mildews) the forthcoming International Code of mycologists have so far been able to benefit by Uwe Braun and Roger A. Cook, and the Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants1, from the full talks of the symposium and Atlas of Soil Ascomycetes by Josep Guarro, followed after extensive debates and others still can do so. Josepa Gené, Alberto M. Stchigel, and M. consideration by different committees, There were 12 presentations in total, all José Figueras. Further information about and in particular The Amsterdam of which are freely available in the video- these works is presented in the Book News Declaration2. The Declaration resulted archive: section of this issue (pp. (35)–(36)). from the “One Fungus = One Name” One fungus which name: how do we proceed? symposium organized by the CBS-KNAW (David L. Hawksworth, Spain/UK)5. Fungal Biodiversity Centre (CBS) Post-Melbourne fungal nomenclature: an 1McNeill JM, Barrie FR. Buck WR, Demoulin V, under the auspices of the International overview (Lorelei Norvell,USA; Scott A. Greuter W, Hawksworth DL, Herendeen PS, Commission on the Taxonomy of Fungi Redhead, Canada). Knapp S, Marhold K, Prado J, Pru’homme (ICTF) and held in Amsterdam on 19–20 Why hyphomycete taxonomy is now more van Reine WF, Smith GE, Wiersema JH, April 2011 (see IMA Fungus 2: (7), important than ever (Keith A. Seifert, Turland NJ (eds) (2012a) International Code 2011). Summaries of the changes which Canada). of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants were introduced have been presented The nomenclature side of fungal databases, (Melbourne Code) adopted by the Eighteenth elsewhere3, 4 and are not repeated here, but registration, etc (Joost A. Stalpers, The International Botanical Congress Melbourne, it is important that the published version Netherlands; Paul M. Kirk, UK). Australia, July 2011. [Regnum Vegetabile, in of the Code is consulted for the final Single names in Hypocreales and press.] Ruggell: A.R.G. Ganter Verlag. wordings. Diaporthales (Amy Y. Rossman, USA). 2Hawksworth DL Crous PW, Redhead SA, Mycologists now have the tasks of Applications of old anamorph-typified names Reynolds DR, Samson RA, Seifert KA, Taylor implementing the changes in their own of genera and species (Uwe Braun)6. JW, Wingfield MJ [& 69 signatories] (2011) publications, and also contributing to the A strategy for fungal names with teleomorph- The Amsterdam Declaration on Fungal production of Accepted and Rejected Lists anamorph connections (Xing-Zhang Liu, Nomenclature. IMA Fungus 2: 105–112; of names. Recognizing the uncertainties China). Mycotaxon 116: 91–500 some mycologists expressed as how to The future of fungal biodiversity research 3Hawksworth DL (2011) A new dawn for the proceed, and also the need to progress (Pedro W. Crous, The Netherlands). naming of fungi: impacts of decisions made work on the Lists, CBS organized a Naming environmental nucleic acid species in Melbourne in July 2011 on the future follow-up symposium on “One Fungus = (ENAS) (John W. Taylor, USA). publication and regulation of fungal names. Which Name?” in the rooms of the Royal The value of epitypification (Kevin D. Hyde, MycoKeys 1: 7–20; IMA Fungus 2: 155–162. Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences China/Thailand). 4Norvell LL (2011) Fungal nomenclature. 1. in Amsterdam on Thursday and Friday 12– An official DNA barcode for fungi (Conrad Melbourne approves a new Code. Mycotaxon 13 April 2012. The meeting was attended Schoch, USA). 116: 481–490. by 155 mycologists from 29 countries, 1000 fungal genomes and beyond (Joey 5Hawksworth DL (2012) Managing and coping almost all of whom were thrilled at the Spatafora, USA). with names of pleomorphic fungi in a period ending of the dual nomenclatural system of transition. Mycosphere 3 (2): 52–64; IMA and enthusiastic at the prospect of Accepted A series of break-out group discussions, Fungus 3: 15–24. Lists which would place mycology at the primarily focused on different fungal taxa, 6Braun U (2012) The impacts of the discontinuation cutting edge of biological nomenclature as was held on the Thursday afternoon, and of dual nomenclature of pleomorphic fungi: a whole. those groups were charged with reporting the trivial facts, problems, and strategies. IMA Each day of the symposium was at the end of the next day. Prior to the Fungus 3: 81–86. organized in the form of a series of presentation of these reports, which are presentations in the morning, and discussion reproduced below, an open discussion was The One Fungus = Which groups or debates in the afternoon. In a new held to clarify aspects of the new provisions Name ? debate venture aimed at making the presentations or other matters that some present had as widely available as possible, the talks found unclear, and further to ascertain the Chair: David L Hawksworth were also videoed and made available via views of those present on various issues that Rapporteur: John W. Taylor the Internet in real-time. Subsequently, a needed to be addressed by those developing Issues considered in this part of the meeting video-archive of the talks was compiled with Lists and the Nomenclature Committee for fell into two categories, a clarification of (10) IMA FUNGUS concepts and possibilities, and view on fungi, or just those in a particular order or (5) Continued use of binomials in REPORTS topics where the ICTF and NCF would family. It is really a matter for mycologists synonymized genera appreciate guidance. concerned with different groups of fungi to decide what protected Lists would be There will be many cases in moving to one Clarification of concepts and of most value to them and which should name per species in pleomorphic fungi, where possibilities be prepared first. As there is evidently no it is uncertain whether all species currently obstacle to Lists being revised or replaced, under a particular name are congeneric with (1) Names on an Accepted List are NOT unlike the situation with the already existing the type species of the generic name to be conserved, BUT treated as if conserved lists of conserved and rejected names, there adopted. This situation is no different from could be some advantage in concentrating that already occurring in non-pleomorphic Some speakers had used the term on generic names first, and adding species genera where it has not been possible to “conserved” for names that would be names at a later date. ascertain the positions of all taxa previously included on the Accepted Lists of names, There was almost unanimous and referred to them. The Code does not rule but their status will not be identical to that enthusiastic support for first producing a on taxonomy, and, if there are no certain of formally conserved names as, under the List covering all accepted generic names grounds to transfer a species from on genus to new Code, names included in the Lists of (including those of lichen-forming fungi, another, there is no nomenclatural obstacle to Conserved Names would have precedence see below), whether or not they exhibited the continued use of the current name until over those on the Accepted Lists. Further, pleomorphism. the matter is resolved. This matter is discussed names that are formally conserved cannot be There was a strong feeling at the further elsewhere in this issue8. This situation deleted, whereas there is no such restriction meeting that provisional Lists should be is pragmatic not ideal, and one option used for names on the Accepted Lists. The open for consideration by the community by some mycologists is to indicate in an meeting found this confusing, and felt that as a whole before submission, in order to informal way that a generic name is being a different term should be found to replace iron out any controversy. It was suggested retained in a wide sense, for example by the “treated as if conserved.” One possibility that draft Lists be put on the IMA website, use of inverted commas, e.g. ´Mycosphaerella´ could be refer to names as “White-“ or with options for comment so as to work where it is unclear if the fungus is truly a “Black-listed. It had also been suggested by towards a consensus. Cladosporium (syn. Davidiella) in the new Gams et al.7, that the terms “prioritization” system. Wholesale uncritical transfer of and “suppression” were preferable to help (3) Typification of names in Lists names is to be discouraged. minimize possibilities of confusion, and that option should be referred to the NCF for It is already possible to change the name- (6) Who can prepare and submit Lists? consideration. bearing type of a name by conservation, and there appears to be no obstacle to There is no restriction on who can produce (2) What names can be included in the this in the new Lists.