IMA FUNGUS · VOLUME 4 · NO 2: 381–443 I#JKK$'LNJ#*JPJN# A without-prejudice list of generic names of fungi for protection under the ARTICLE International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants Paul M. Kirk1, Joost A. Stalpers2, Uwe Braun3, Pedro W. Crous2, Karen Hansen4, David L. Hawksworth1, 5, Kevin D. Hyde, Robert Lücking7, Thorsten H. Lumbsch7, Amy Y. Rossman', Keith A. Seifert9, and Mark Stadler10 14"x`"@$*"_>?I 2/x"?|;<x/_'*K'P/@_@| 34?+?_xx`x`|N#JJ$$" ` 4x"4|"~x6KJJJ";"?#JPJK"" 5xD<<_/4~G/4N'JPJ ">+"@|4/+"Kx_ 6<""4<+_/@ 7"!@<4#PJJ"+"/+JJK_"; 'Systematic Mycology & Microbiology Laboratory, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD 20705 USA 9x4;!;?</#;J// 10G/`4%*'#NPx` Abstract: ;[+~`|<? Key words: +$$K Ascomycota generic names out of the 17072 validly published names proposed for fungi and invite comments from all interested Basidiomycota mycologists by 31 March 2014. The selection of names for inclusion takes note of recent major publications on different Chytridiomycota groups of fungi, and further the decisions reached so far by international working groups concerned with particular Glomeromycota families or genera. Changes will be sought in the Code to provide for this and lists at other ranks to be protected against Lichens any competing unlisted names, and to permit the inclusion of names of lichen-forming fungi. A revised draft will be made Myxomycota available for further discussion at the 10th International Mycological Congress in Bangkok in August 2014. A schedule is Nomenclature suggested for the steps needed to produce a list for adoption by the International Botanical Congress in August 2017. Protected List This initiative provides mycologists with an opportunity to place nomenclature at the generic level on a more secure Oomycota and stable base. Zygomycota Article info:"I#NJ#*>;I#NJ#*>~I#'NJ#* INTRODUCTION /@6</@< However, the rates of progress have varied, and there are many The International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and orders and families with no working groups. The procedures for plants/|>4|et al. 2012) provided for the development the development, review, and approval of lists will necessarily of lists of accepted names of fungi in all ranks that could be be lengthy as they require much care over matters of 6 [M |/<|/<` of two or more competing names the mycological community Committee (Art. 14.13). The Code also provided for the wishes to commend. While the Code[ ; K* [ While the motivation for these lists was the ending of the the subsequent International Botanical Congress (IBC), that is provisions for the separate naming of different morphs of the likely to be the situation in practice. Also as some aspects of the same species, which became effective on 30 July 2012, there [ was no such restriction placed on the names that might be to the wordings in the current Codex/R6? placed on the new lists. 6"G/N*MN$¤ Considerable progress has been made in the development NJ#>|" [ the Code or adopt lists would be discussed is scheduled for propose for protection by working groups co-ordinated by the #'MNN¤NJ# © 2013 International Mycological Association You are free to share - to copy, distribute and transmit the work, under the following conditions: Attribution: [ Non-commercial: No derivative works: For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work, which can be found at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/legalcode. Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder. Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author’s moral rights. VOLUME 4 · NO. 2 381 Kirk et al. Acceptance of lists by the mycological community as a The selection of names presented here is without- whole is desirable, and the best method for that would be prejudice. That is, it is a document with no decision, that through review, and adoption with amendments proposed, leaves all mycologists free to argue and that the contents are 4/*M'; not to be taken as implying that they will be those eventually 2014 in Bangkok, Thailand. Following that Congress, the adopted. Nevertheless, this list has endeavoured to follow ARTICLE lists would be honed and submitted to the NCF (via the the developing views of working groups as their discussions `/` continue, in addition to the publications cited above and the / NJ#K [ personal knowledge of the contributors to this list. Input from NJ#x/ the wider mycological community is encouraged. Matters At the Spring Symposium organized by the CBS-KNAW to be considered in making choices between competing Fungal Biodiversity Centre in Amsterdam on 10–12 April [G 2013, it was recognized that slow progress was being in Hawksworth (2012). made on the preparation of lists for many groups of fungi, All fungal groups whose nomenclature is covered by the and dates in the suggested timetable (Hawksworth 2012) Code are treated here, including slime-moulds (Myxomycota were being missed. In view of the urgent need to resolve or Mycetozoa), oomycetes (Oomycota), and lichen-forming which of competing generic names in particular were to be fungi (see below). Names of Microsporidia6 adopted, especially in fungi of applied importance such as their nomenclature is governed by the International Code of medicine and plant pathology, it was proposed that a draft Zoological Nomenclature/|~' + ~ ` | It is always easier to introduce a new generic name than for discussion and made available for comment as soon as to discover if one is already available in the past literature. ;NJ#*@[ As we do not wish to encourage oversights, but do wish to of that proposal. provide an opportunity for earlier names to be discovered, 6 before 1 January 2000. THE WITHOUT-PREJUDICE LIST $$K and dates of publication. A fuller version with bibliographical The starting point for the preparation of the list presented citations and information on the type species will be available here was the names of genera accepted in the latest edition to download as a PDF from the website of the ICTF. The of Ainsworth & Bisby’s Dictionary of the Fungi (Kirk et al. list to be proposed for eventual adoption will include that NJJ' information, but those elements are omitted in this article species information from the already scrutinized NCU-3: "[ Names in current use for extant plant genera`et al. places of publication and type species, will also be available 1993), Index Fungorum, and MycoBank. We also took into G[ account available major works and other compilations. These www.generaoffungi.org. are too numerous to list here, but include the Outline of Ascomycota–2009 (Lumbsch & Huhndorf 2010), The Yeasts (Kurtzman et al. 2011), The Genera of Hyphomycetes (Seifert CODE MODIFICATIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS et al. 2011), and proposals regarding the choice between competing names in some families already published Because the concept of protected and rejected lists of names (Rossman et al. 2013, Stadler et al. 2013). We also drew on had not been discussed by mycologists at large prior to its various works recently published or in press (e.g. Braun et al. inclusion in the Code, a number of matters require further 2013, Hyde et al. 2013). With respect to the names proposed [ [@ 6 prior to the development of formal proposals. compiled in Kendrick & Di Cosmo (1979) and Hyde et al. (2011) was of particular value. Terminology In an ideal situation, the type material of the type The Code does not give a title for the new appendices to the species of all the generic names should be assessed, as Code where lists of names to be accepted or rejected under stressed by Stalpers (2013). The scale of such a task is ;#P#*;K* enormous, especially considering the number of mycologists to avoid confusion with the lists of conserved and rejected 6 IndexFungorumL names already in the Code, various possibilities have been MycoBank holds information on 17 072 generic names that OG P are considered validly published and dating from before 2010. `et al. 2012b), “list-accepted vs?P` G et al NJ#N ?6 O~P NJJ##JK O"P ; NJ#* @ <6/ O~P !"#$*#`et al. 1993). Much information is also available in database form, as Index Nominum Genericorum Status of listed names (Plantarum 6 x ! The Code currently states that names on accepted lists “are `#$$ to be listed with their types together with those competing been considered in any of these lists. synonyms (including sanctioned names) against which they 382 IMA FUNGUS Without-prejudice list of generic names of fungi for protection P;#P#*@ by the 2017 International Botanical Congress (IBC), a list ARTICLE not address the issue of instability caused by the resurrection ready for scrutiny needs to be available at the 10th IMC in of long-unused or little-used names to replace widely used x ; NJ#P 6? 6 steps in the evolution of this without-prejudice list to a ? [ protected list. recognize that the Code provides mechanisms to avoid such deleterious changes, but the bureaucracy and time-scales (1) Proposals for additions, deletions, or correction to this involved can deter mycologist from following that course. without-prejudice list to be submitted to Joost A. Stalpers Consequently, we suggest that names on the protected lists () for Basidiomycota, and Paul M. Kirk should be protected against all unlisted names. A precedent () for all other phyla by 31 March 2014. for this type of protection is seen in the Resolution concerning [Trichocomaceae carried at the (2) The above proposals to be compiled and presented to @x/ #$$* O6 O``P/x"?|; names that would compete with or change the application of Fungal Biodiversity Centre in Amsterdam on 24-25 April 2014.