16/RR7Q3./6./G/6/G IMA FUNGUS · VOLUME 3 · NO 1: 15–24 Managing and coping with names of pleomorphic fungi in a period of ARTICLE transition1, 2 N#+P Departamento de Biología Vegetal II, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Plaza Ramón y Cajal, E-28040 Madrid, JX N + J 0 P ? E ; + JLW RN MKX =1 Z Key words: Abstract: An explanation is provided of the recent changes in the International Code of anamorph Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants relating to the ending of the separate naming of different Ascomycota =" Basidiomycota [OP[ conidial fungi O+P coelomycetes the existing processes of sanctioning and conservation or rejection, and steps to be considered for hyphomycetes & International Code of Nomenclature by individuals, and responsible committees, in the current period of transition to a system of fungal nomenclature .6st Sneath teleomorph Article info:J1.W?./6.XF1RF./6.X(16/F./6. "The whole process is evolving, slower than some would like, and too fast for others (Scott A. Redhead, 26 January 2012)" INTRODUCTION molecular methods were just becoming available, that some mycologists realized that molecular phylogenetic methods On 30 July 2011, the long-established practice of allowing F separate names to be used for different morphs of the placed in its appropriate phylogenetic position, regardless [ of the kind of spore-producing structure expressed – even the XVIIIth International Botanical Congress, meeting in Melbourne, Australia, adopted a resolution accepting the & # decisions of the Nomenclature Section of the Congress that “one name for one fungus” became increasingly recognized 6QM..>./66?0et al../66 amongst mycologists, and the way in which that might be Decisions became immediately effective from the date the # resolution was adopted, unless a date on which particular At the same time some mycologists, impatient with a lack of provisions become effective was included in the decisions common assent as to what should be done, started to adopt 0J&# N and not the date of publication of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants "E0X [ edited version of the new Code is expected in mid-2012 1&[Mycosphere 3.162GM6RR./6. ?0 et al ./6. J # N[" 6/R72G33G3.323 to mycologists have, however, been provided elsewhere permission of the publishers and with minor changes, especially in P./66+./660#./66 &6 & = 2Dedicated to the memory of the numerical taxonomist and lichenized ascomycete and basidiomycete fungi has been ( PF J 67.GM./66 a source of continuing controversy, especially since the M#+67V2MV7 67R/F'# tried to convince me in the 1980s that the “approved lists” model was # ' " X7J Congresses, the most dramatic being at the Sydney ./66[ E67Q6P#677/ # © 2012 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 3 · NO. 1 15 Hawksworth " ? E J would cause, names in those two categories are ruled 2003, Norvell et al../6/& as validly published and legitimate – provided they were #;./6/0 6>./6GFR76 by a special meeting, held under the auspices of the In some instances, generic names with type species "E&<!"E&! [ ARTICLE FF./66Pet al./66# [<= ?E types, will have priority over currently used teleomorph- As a result of the Melbourne decision, the nomenclature [&= of non-lichenized, pleomorphic fungi has entered a phase of names will have priority of publication, but be little used, so L #E' '## FRW.= Furthermore, when made, the decisions on those names need names in cases where either name was “widely used for a to be promulgated throughout the mycological community, <= been considered by the General Committee and rejected” &#O[05[!P & O[!5L04P in instances where both names are not widely used, & mycologists are not constrained from immediately adopting P# " # =%# necessary to reassess around 2,000–3,000 names of genera, usage of dual nomenclature, where the anamorph name 6////M6./// " is much used, some mycologists are already adopting and probably most, the reassessments will not necessitate =<L =; that may not be considered good practice under the Code, in need to minimize the potential disruption that could ensue, X the Congress made some special provisions to mitigate P# & # ' procedures will take some years to implement fully as, in @E@E0& some cases, deciding on which names to adopt is likely to =# ' & = 4 &# & 1 6 < " X. would be to propose either the less used teleomorph name 6 > ./6GX G #= #O+PX O+ 2 P F ## @ E For submitted cases, the key guidance is to maintain THE NEW SITUATION “existing usage as far as possible”, pending the decision ; RVF6 P# & = conservation or rejection has been announced by the [ = G/ > Committee, that should be followed – even though formal ./66;= [ER ' <"EF &= 62VRV2E./6W & Some publications, introducing separate new names for '1 different states of the same fungus, may already have been in 6 & advanced stages of preparation, or in press, when the decision X F R76 the sexual stage represented by the name-bearing type protects those appearing before 1 January 2013 from either ## . & # # \ L nomenclature means that, where names had been application of the rules that apply to all other fungal names introduced for different morphs of a single taxon, those would mean that such names would not be available for use # #X # After 1 January 2013, different names proposed for morphs of \ a single species no longer have such protection but, until that < date, names introduced for different morphs will not be ruled "# # 16 IMA FUNGUS Managing and coping with names of pleomorphic fungi in a period of transition " 1 6 J will give the largest number of “hits”, but these may contain ARTICLE ascomycetes and basidiomycetes published on or after Google Scholar is more restrictive in being 6 ? 6WRG = = [ [ ' general, but both these will not weed-out non-fungal usages X.0 !< proposed for different states, prior to 1 January 2013, a search of CoryneVW6///Google and which would otherwise be ruled as invalid or illegitimate by 6GW//Google Scholar due to the inclusion of coryneform the application of the general provisions for fungal names, bacteria and coryne-bacteria, whereas Ascocoryne yielded # 6GG///6/W/#XSphaerellopsis, without the OPW/R//Google but only 4,800 with “rust” due to problems of an orthographically DEFINING “WIDELY USED” X'Polymorphum, 6.V/// Google and 3,380 in Google L < = Scholar, mainly from the use of “polymorphum” as a species [= # & # for consideration through the mandated Committees, under in some cases, potentially misleading bibliometrics, but F RW. # O P they have merit in being broader in their coverage than &OP databases such as Web of Science or Scopus which catch [ < [ of what the Editorial Committee for the Melbourne Code to attract more attention as tools in the biblioinformatics considered to be good practice, are being incorporated into F 9 ? ./6. K ./6. " the body of the Code itself3: principle, a better guide for usage in fungal taxonomy would Ex. 2. & = Eupenicillium be the Bibliography of Systematic Mycology, but in that the !+ 6Q7. # = <67QV%< = of numbers of hits obtained for 25 genera in three datasets Penicillium + 6Q/7 P 9 J J ? &6 W/1 .2 ./66 Penicillium being the oldest and the most widely L# P### 1 6 and stabilize this nomenclature, it could be appropriate to propose to the advent of widespread computerization of bibliographic # = =67W/ 67Q/ @E = # X . Ex. 3&=Polychaeton( the commonplace situation where both state names of + #6Q2VE9!N# R6166V./66= accepted names for the different states, or where one is name Capnodium?6Q27 XG#< and the authors suggest that the teleomorphic name be considered the databases themselves, for example, if they are based on for inclusion in the planned lists of accepted names to be approved a search of the entire text, as words in an abstract, or only @EF626G It would be helpful if mycologists involved in making the L # # # two paragraphs might be overcome with the help of & < biblioinformatics specialists, others are unlikely to be and would need to be borne in mind when preparing draft %# & Biodiversity Heritage Library and CyberLiber were eventually 0E!0E! #6WRG " E "MJ3"M?J there would be the so-pertinent usage in applied biological "E&<!"E&! = Nevertheless, the numbers of mentions of generic names In reaching a decision as to whether each of a competing recovered by search engines or bibliographic databases may pair of state names is “widely used” or not, it will be important serve as a rough-and-ready indication as to what is “widely to consider the wider community of biologists who use fungal used”, but only with an awareness of the caveats noted <" above, and a familiarity with current practices in the group of =# A simple Google search on a word, such as a generic name, If in doubt whether one or both names of a pleomorphic fungus fall into the “widely used” category, it would be prudent 3& [ " before the new edition of the Code the prospect of embarrassment if the decision is reversed in VOLUME 3 · NO. 1 17 18 ARTICLE Table 1. Results of searches on 25 pairs of potentially competing generic names in Google, Google Scholar, and the Bibliography of Systematic Mycology J?67QV.6!./6. @1 bold5italic55X#5 # Anamorph-typified Search results Teleomorph-typified Search results Google Google BSM Google Google BSM Scholar Scholar (1) ACCEPT PRIORITY ? Basipetospora@&E9LK67VQ 26W/ 184 12 v.