Fungal Symbionts of Author(s): Rolf Santesson Source: Taxon, Vol. 3, No. 5 (Jun., 1954), pp. 147-148 Published by: International Association for Plant (IAPT) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1217328 . Accessed: 08/03/2014 07:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Taxon.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 212.238.90.13 on Sat, 8 Mar 2014 07:22:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions a mixture of substantives and adjectives for Marcus E. Joneses." This seems to be a infragenericepithets in the same rank should (ion sequitur, as indeed also is his next be avoided. This is perhaps a point which the paragraph which states that the necessity editorial committee might bear in mind. for providing a Latin diagnosis is a sound preventive. No Latin diagnosis is required 13. ARTICLE39. The amendment proposed for new names which can be referred to by H. St John to define more accurately the previously published descriptions. In this field of literature in which valid publication connection I would like to mention that the of new names may take place will find editor of the Journal of Ecology does not considerable favour with the compilers of permit publication of new names in his the Index Kewensis. It should, I think, be journal, nor do the editors of the Flora of the business of the Congress to consider Tropical East Africa and the new edition of whether it is practicable to restrict valid the Flora of West Tropical Africa. publication to journals devoted to taxonomic on a national or even an international 14. ARTICLE75. I am in full agreement with botany, H. St scale. St John's amendment is an im- John's vigorous attack on this article in Taxon, 3:10. The for the provement on the article as at present provision worded, but in answer to his - rejection of nomina confusa is being taken question care of a modification of the for I would exclude the publicationshe mentions, by proposal nomina in Taxon 1 78-80 together with ecological and agricultural rejicienda given put forward some members of the Kew journals, thj journals published by the by numerous specialist horticulturalsocieties and staff to the Geneva Symposium (Jan. 25-30, The for this is the vast majority of local natural 1954). necessity provision history underlined St "The society journals. All of these are to a by John's phrase, name greater of taxon that is of or less extent scientific journals, some of any capable typifica- them exclusively so; but their business is not tion ...."; there are so very many names that are doubtful or of primarily taxonomic botany. incapable typification. This matter is also raised by L. C. Wheeler 15. ARTICLE81. With apologies to L. C. in his proposal no. 140 (Taxon, 3: 58). He Wiheeler (Taxon, 3: 58). points out the difficulty of defining trades- Verb. nov. should follow typonymous - men's catalogues and newspapers, but then Wheeler, there's nothing synonymous makes the startling assertion, - "Restriction Its euphoniosity of avenues of publication is the first step Reduces verbosity,- towardthe creation of more and But it isn't a word - it's Rafinesques iPbasonymous. FUNGAL SYMBIONTS OF LICHENS by Rolf Santesson (Uppsala) Remarkson Proposal no. 46: R. Ciferri and the establishment of two different classifica- R. Tomaselli, The taxonomy and nonien- tions and two nomenclatural systems, one clature of the fungal symbionts of Lichens. for the lichens and one for the fungal - Taxon 2: 194, 1953. components of the lichens. In Art. 76 of the I.C.B.N. it is stated: This means an addition of about 20.000 "For nomenclaturalpurposes names given to new names to botanical nomenclature. Is lichens shall be considered as applying to this drastic step really necessary and can their fungal components - -." it be scientifically defended? This does not mean that "lichens are to be As generally admitted, also by Ciferri & considered only with regard to the , Tomaselli, lichens are composite organisms leaving the lichenic complex out of the picture consisting of fungi and algae. It has been (even from a biological point of view", nor clearly proved that neither the -fungi that "a lichen is considered as a fungal nor the lichen-algae form inter se coherent parasite of an alga" (Ciferri &- Tomaselli, loc. taxonomic groups, but tlat they are related cit.). * (or belong) to different groups of non- lichenized fungi and algae. Instead, lichens Following the scheme suggested by form a biological group. This group is not Thomas (1939), Ciferri & Tomaselli propose sharply circumscribed, and in many cases it 147

This content downloaded from 212.238.90.13 on Sat, 8 Mar 2014 07:22:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions is difficult to establish whether or not an follows: "The fungal component of the "organism"should be regarded as a lichen. lichen symbiosis, whatever its origin may be, There exist in fact fungal species which are has moved away from the actual representa- sometimes clearly lichenized, and sometimes tives of the non-symbiotic Ascomycetes to living without algae. There are lichens which such an extent that now it can no more be during part of their life-cycles live as para- illcluded in the mycological system of the symbionts. In many other cases it is difficult free fungi." This is a clearly incorrect t: decide whether a fungus should be statement. regarded as lichenized or as a true parasite * on algae. A Lichens do not form the only example of which seem to form As arguments for their proposal, Ciferri composite organisms & Tomaselli list a number of "a new neues ein- 'fungal genera" unitary organism" ("ein which are said to be "common to" one or leitliches Mattick in Ber. Deutsch. Wesen", more different "lichen- Bot. Ges. Other are morphologically very 64:95, 1952). examples and some which the "Endocyanosen",the "Syn- genera", "lichen-genera" provided by are said to include two or more (lifferent cyanosen"(Pascher 1939 and 1914), by various with their bacteria "fungal genera". higher plants symbiotic Some of the mentioned in and the and lichen-genera Actinomycetes, by mycorrhizas, their are based on the numerous animals Ascidiae, proposal genera exclusively by (corals, the occurrence of different in their with their algae etc.) symbiotic algae. Fortunately, thalli. has the idea no have been made to establish for Fortunately, nobody got attempts of for of these two different nomenclatural basing, instance, genera phanerogams organisms on the occurrence of different similar to those now exclusively systems proposed by in their or Ciferri & Tomaselli. mycorrhizal fungi roots, genera of the Uredinales on characters derived from It must be that the double emphasized the host Some of the other lichen- nomnenclatural does not plants. system proposed mentioned are because mean two taxonomical but one genera distinguished systems, their are real lichens or taxonomical and one fact species parasym- biological. (This bionts. This division is based on a was stated The purely clearly by Thomas). proposal is true that a number means that the lichen names should be used biological character. It and in the and not as of lichenologists still accept such genera only biological system but the. taxonomical names. The extensive conse- even the "gonidial" lichen-genera, for the wliole botanical nomen- opposition against these views is very strong. quences Most of the cases, where different "lichen- clature by an acceptance of Ciferri & genera" are said to have of Tomaselli's proposal must be carefully con- representatives sidered all botanists. the same "fungal genera" as a component, by are more are so Ciferri & Tomaselli gave "two im- complicated. They extremely very remarkable indeed that a discussion seems portant arguments" which should justify their two classifications and two nomen- impossible before Ciferri & Tomaselli have clatural published a more detailed report of their systems: all it is most 1. "The cultivated in investigations. For lichenologists fungal symbiont, to for that the the does not -" Does sensational learn, instance, laboratory, fructify, of Usnea and Lichina would this more than that our lichen-fungi prove present those is belong to the same , similarly laboratory technique imperfect? of Evernia and and those of 2. Parmeliella, "No one has been able to reproduce and It is also under lonaspis Parmeliopsis. extremely indubitably the lichenic symbiosis remarkable to learn that the com- conditions. - " fungal experimental laboratory ponents of Cladonia rangiferina and Cl. The meaning of this argument is difficult to silvatica should different understand. Thomas's (1939) successful syn- represent fungal of Cladonia cannot genera, thesizing pyxidata, e.g., * * be unknown to Ciferri & Tomaselli. Could they perhaps mean that in the laboratory nobody has been able to make a lichen from As a matter of fact, a reader of the proposal a fungus which is not lichenized in nature? made by Ciferri & Tomaselli, and of their Is not that demanding too much of the two cited papers from 1952, cannot, indeed, laboratory botanists? free himself from the impression that they The second sentence under point 2. runs as intend to make fun of lichenology. 148

This content downloaded from 212.238.90.13 on Sat, 8 Mar 2014 07:22:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions