ARTICLE 449

, K.W al. 2012) perhaps et 4 for algae, fungi, and plants Key words: fungi Nomenclature International Code of International Botanical Congress International Mycological Congress lichens pleomorphic fungi protected lists IMA · 5(2): 449–462 (2014) 449–462 · 5(2): FUNGUS IMA , and Nicholas J. Turland J. , and Nicholas 1 . Following the Melbourne Congress, it became clear that Following the Melbourne Congress, it became possible set of proposals for changes was compiled A was governance, which was referred to a newly formed to a newly formed was governance, which was referred to the next IBC Special Committee charged with reporting in Shenzhen, China, in 2017. in the resultant various changes made and incorporated and now re-named International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN; McNeill " As the 10th International the requirements of mycologists. Mycological Congress (IMC10) meeting in Bangkok in 2014 would be the last before the 2017 IBC, it was appropriate to take that opportunity to obtain the views of mycologists as addition, the ICN (Art. 42.3) charged the IMC with ratifying the decisions of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi (NCF) with respect to the appointment of repositories for information on newly introduced names of fungi and the #$ following feedback from mycologists, especially during the international “One = Which Gene?” symposium Those April 2013 (Hawksworth 2014). Amsterdam in held in proposals were subject to further discussion at the “Genera April (Anon. Amsterdam the following of Fungi” symposium in International Mycological International Mycological th , Keith A. Seifert , Keith

3 et al. , David L. Hawksworth , David L. 2

, Vincent Demoulin , Vincent 1 2011). Those views, and the counter- et al. 2011). Three Nomenclature Sessions were convened during the 10 Three Nomenclature Sessions 2010), and subsequent debates on key et al. 2010), and subsequent debates on key International Mycological Congress (IMC9) in (IMC9) in International Mycological Congress th Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin-Dahlem, Freie Universität Berlin, Königin-Luise-Straße 6–8, D-14195 Berlin, Germany Universität Berlin, Königin-Luise-Straße 6–8, Botanisches Museum Berlin-Dahlem, Freie Botanischer Garten und Institut de Botanique B22, Département des Sciences de la Vie, Université de Liège, Sart TiIman, B-4000 Liège, Belgium TiIman, Université de Liège, Sart Département des Sciences de la Vie, Institut de Botanique B22, y Cajal, Madrid 28040, Spain; Complutense de Madrid, Plaza Ramón II, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad Vegetal Departamento de Biología Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre, Science and Technology Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 960 Carling Avenue 960 Carling Agri-Food Canada, and Agriculture Branch, Technology and Centre, Science and Oilseed Research Eastern Cereal Department of Life Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK; and Section, Royal Botanic London SW7 5BD, UK; and Mycology The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, Department of Life Sciences, Neatby Building, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C6, Canada; corresponding author e-mail: [email protected] 0C6, Canada; Ontario K1A Neatby Building, Ottawa, 3DS, UK TW9 Surrey Gardens, Kew, Abstract: © 2014 International Mycological Association © 2014 International Mycological conditions: distribute and transmit the work, under the following are free to share - to copy, You Attribution: 4 2 3 Scott A. Redhead 1 Fungal Nomenclature at IMC10: Report of the Nomenclature Sessions the Nomenclature Report of at IMC10: Nomenclature Fungal Congress (IMC10) in Bangkok on 3–8 August 2014. In addition a Questionnaire was given to August 2014. In addition Bangkok on 3–8 Congress (IMC10) in and the views expressed in the Sessions This Report reviews and summarizes all delegates. issues covered related to aspects of: registration, The Questionnaire. in the responses to the % from working groups preparing lists of names and governance. In addition, reports were received The cases of competing names were discussed. to be proposed for protection, and controversial of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi (NCF) on Congress was mandated to ratify decisions After discussion in the of new fungal names. the appointment of repositories for the registration was three such bodies, a Resolution to that effect Sessions on the decision of the NCF to appoint a Resolution asking that the opinions of The Congress also adopted approved by the Congress. of fungi be taken into account in formulating mycologists on future directions for the nomenclature International Botanical Congress in 2017 changes in the rules for consideration at the 10 December 2014. Accepted: 1 December 2014; Published: Article info: Submitted: 26 November 2014; Non-commercial:No derivative works:Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get 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. Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author’s moral rights. permission from the copyright holder. Nomenclature Sessions convened over three days at over three days at Nomenclature Sessions convened the 9 INTRODUCTION doi:10.5598/imafungus.2014.05.02.09 Edinburgh in 2010, and an associated Questionnaire Questionnaire Edinburgh in 2010, and an associated in guiding given to all delegates, were instrumental then International proposals to modify provisions in the Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN; McNeill VOLUME 5 · NO. 2 2006) related to fungi. The report of the 2010 Sessions The report of the 2010 Sessions 2006) related to fungi. (Norvell points at an international symposium in Amsterdam Amsterdam points at an international symposium in Amsterdam Declaration’ April, led to ‘The the following which expressed guidance on the directions in which various aspects of fungal nomenclature might proceed (Hawksworth the debate that led to the adoption of a variety of changes to the rules relating to the nomenclature of fungi by the Nomenclature Section of the XVIII International Botanical Congress (IBC), meeting in Melbourne in July 2011 All the substantive Flann et al. 2014). (Hawksworth 2011; issues were formulated into proposals and adopted by the ! The exception mycologists during the Section meetings. 450 ARTICLE

registrants atthe10 the delegatepacksofall921mycologistswhowerefull 2014) andweredistilledintoaQuestionnaireincludedin in theanswers to thatQuestionnaire,anyadditional pertinent $Z$\ Mycological Association; IMA)wasalsodiscussed. the Congress(theGeneral assembly oftheInternational to submitforadoptionatthe ClosingPlenarySessionof !*+<> lists ofnamesforpossibleprotectionorsuppressionunder from representativesofthevariousworkinggroupsdeveloping relating tofungi,theSessionsalsoreceivedpresentations here indicatedinred Table 1. IBC, questionswhichgainedmorethanthatpercentageare change totheCodeatNomenclatureSectionmeetingsof As 60%assentingistheacceptedpercentagerequiredfor a less than3%anddidnotsubstantiallyaltertheoutcomes. including andexcludingsignatureswerefoundtovaryby as Table 1.Percentageswerecomparedbetweentalliesboth the resultsfromQuestionnairearemadeavailablehere registration, whichwastobediscussedatthethirdSession; count inrelationtothequestionspertinentfungalname were notpresentedtotheSessionsapartfromapreliminary % oftheIMC10delegates. Tallies fromtheQuestionnaire or 117 (ifincludingtheunsignedcopies)represents11–13 not relevanttotheirinterests. The totalof104signedcopies $ were undecided,hadalternativeviews,orthequestions \ $ We haveinterpretedsuch unansweredquestionstobe“null” forms weregiventheoptionofleavingblankanyquestions. Questionnaires werereceivedunsigned. Those completing and sentinremotelyconsideredbutnotcounted. Thirteen to avoidmultiplesubmissions.OneQuestionnairewascopied included ontheform,anddelegateswereaskedtosignthem answered was117; aplaceforindividualcommentswasalso the Congress,andtotalreceivedwithatleastonequestion respectively. Questionnaireswereaccepted up totheendof attending eachdaywereapproximately90,74,and77, left orjoinedwhiletheywerestillinprogress. The numbers participants ineachSessionvaried,andsomemycologists for the2017IBCNomenclatureSection). The numberof of Fungi,ICTF),andNicholas Turland (Rapporteur-général A. Seifert(Chair, InternationalCommissiononthe on NomenclatureandRapporteurfortheSessions),Keith Nomenclature), DavidL.Hawksworth(GeneralCommittee panel comprisingVincent Demoulin(GeneralCommitteeon by Scott A. Redhead(Chair, NCF),whowasassistedbya of thecirculatedQuestionnaire. The Sessionswerechaired intended tobecoveredineachSessionlistedontheback 13.30–15.30 hon4,5,and7 August 2014,withthetopics the appointmentofrepositoriesasrequiredbyICN. or votesweretobetakenatIMC10apartfromthatonratifying of proposalsforthe2017IBC,andthatnobindingdecisions only toguidefurtherdebateandthesubsequentformulation Nomenclature SessionsandtheQuestionnairewereintended (IMC10) inBangkokon3–8 August 2014. This Reportsummarizesthe discussionsonthetopics In additiontodiscussionsonpossiblechangesintheICN Nomenclature SessionsatIMC10wereheldfrom It wasexplicitlystatedontheQuestionnairethat th InternationalMycologicalCongress Redhead etal.

of data. Not all comments were captured in the heat of the of data.Notall commentswerecapturedin theheatof ]\ there hadbeenveryfewreciprocal exchangesofdata,only 2012). Redheadnotedthatdespite thesignedagreement, (MoC) betweenthemsigned in 2012(cf.Redhead&Norvell repositories, asforeseeninthe MemorandumofCooperation that ofsynchronizationdataexchangebetweenthethree \ to evaluatethesituationforeachrepositoryandmakean and membersoftheCongressshouldbegivenfullopportunity Chair oftheNCF, hebelievedthatthedelegates attheSession between thethreerepositorieshadbeensigned. Therefore, as had timetofullyevaluateprogresssincea2012agreement and chairoftheNCFin2013–14meantthathadnot repository, inpartbecausehealthissuesforboth thesecretary He alsoindicatedthatseparatevoteswouldbetalliedforeach indicated itwouldbeaddressedindetailthethirdsession. anticipated itmightdevelopinthefuture. explaining howthesystemwasoperatingandit Robert (“MycoBankandsequence-basedfungaltaxonomy”), Fungorum, SpeciesFungorumandtheGNA”),Vincent for nomenclaturalandtaxonomicdatainmycology:Index ~P€‚Oƒ\ congress symposiabyRedhead(“Istheregistrationof session, pertinentseparatetalkswerepresentedin Norvell 2012,2013). each voteduponseparatelywithintheNCF(Redhead& (82 %),IndexFungorum(71andFungalNames decided toappointthreeelectronicrepositories:MycoBank $`{| a subsequentInternationalMycologicalCongress”. The NCF O" or morerecognizedrepositoriestoaccessiontherequired Art. 42.3oftheICNempoweredNCFtoappointone REGISTRATION sent regretsfromtheexitingsecretary, LoreleiNorvell. \]^ Dianese, PaulKirk, Tom May, ShaunPennycook,Dagmar introduced theothersixNCFmembersattendingIMC,José three sessionsatIMC10.Somewhatlaterinthehe outlined howthevarioustopicswouldbeaddressedin Nomenclature SectionattheXVIIIIBCinMelbourneand sessions atIMC9inEdinburghandthesubsequent Redhead presentedanoverviewofthepreviousnomenclature PREAMBLE which votesweretallied. of repositories,whichwerediscussedonthelastday, after # [ the orderinwhichtheywerepresentedonQuestionnaire and theagreedResolutions. The topicsaretreatedherein arising fromthepresentationsofparticularlistsnames, comments madeintheCommentsboxonform,keyissues introduced the discussion in session one and Redhead introducedthediscussioninsessiononeand Prior tothediscussionofthistopicinthirdnomenclature IMA FUNGUS IMC10 Nomenclature Sessions Report

resulting debate. Robert indicated that a program had been Johnston (writing in remotely from New Zealand) considered ARTICLE written and existed to facilitate data exchange and was in hand that the system used should be compatible with whatever is at MycoBank. Kirk questioned whether the central server in to be established for plant names, and that there was need the schematic diagram in the 2012 agreement was or should to discuss support beyond that which could be supplied by have been the MycoBank server. He also questioned the individual institutions. competency of any member of the session in understanding the level of programming involved for synchronization. Robert Halfway through the third nomenclature session, after iterated that he did. He also expressed surprise that it was not discussing the registration of names, the remaining fully understood that the central server was to be MycoBank Questionnaires were gathered and a quick tally of votes for as it was not cost effective to set up another site. Peter each of the repositories was made by two volunteers (Hai Buchanan believed that the MoC had interpreted the diagram Nguyen and Joey Tanney) and reported by Redhead. All as indicating that there was to be a separate central server. three repositories had received more than 60 % support Redhead noted that there had been a period of instability while in the returned Questionnaires (Table 1, Q. 1–3), and a Kirk was transferred from CABI to the Royal Botanic Gardens >\$ˆ‰ Kew, and Index Fungorum was migrated from servers at CABI those then present in the Session, with none against but a to Landcare Research (NZ) and later to Kew, and that the lack few abstentions. That Resolution was then forwarded to the of synchrony was leading to numerous discrepancies. Now Closing Plenary Session of IMC10 (see p. 460). that Index Fungorum was based at the Royal Botanic Gardens The issue of whether the registration database should Kew, Hawksworth hoped that integration could be accelerated. serve as the only place for the valid publication of new Pedro Crous raised the issue of comparing apples with oranges fungal names, as a means of ensuring the registration data and suggested that MycoBank alone be used to register ZŠ names and that Index Fungorum focus on nomenclature, the Session. This possibility received just over 60 % support adding that he regularly consulted IF for quick nomenclatural in the Questionnaire indicating either a strong desire to overviews. He believed that such an arrangement would be standardize fungal name validations or dissatisfaction with current practices, but this topic requires wider debate before made to collaborate in such a way. He was also of the opinion any formal proposals to change the status quo are made. In † particular, there are implications for the publication of new arose because of nomenclatural errors or misunderstandings, " and various instances where problems had arisen were discussed; most were not, however, actually due to errors in Comments: One participant expressed concern over how the databases. Paul Cannon saw the shortage of mycologists peer review could be guaranteed in such a system, and felt with nomenclatural expertise as a particular problem, and that there must be a link to a peer-reviewed paper. One NCF participants acknowledged that they generally used Index member also strongly disagreed with this idea if the proposal Fungorum as the reference nomenclator. He suggested there meant that peer review would be removed, as seemed to be be encouragement for supporting multiple registries. Crous the case. and John Taylor indicated that they may well set up many new repositories that would be synchronized. Redhead noted that technically none would or could be immediately recognized as PROTECTED NAMES *!‡ Hawksworth summarized the provisions of the ICN in relation Comments: Several mycologists remarked on the to the development of lists of protected and/or suppressed Questionnaires as to whether it had been appropriate to have names of fungi, and stressed that, although stimulated by separate questions on each of the repositories appointed by the ending of dual nomenclature for pleomorphic fungi, the the NCF, rather than a single one to approve the decision provisions were not limited to them. There was an issue of However, as the NCF had voted on the three repositories whether names included on lists should be protected only separately (Redhead & Norvell 2013), Redhead considered against names listed as rejected in their favour (currently it appropriate and necessary to ratify each separately. Some supported by Art. 14.3), or also against any unlisted names felt that having more than one repository was a massive that might be found to compete with them (which would duplication, while others felt it either increased personal require a change to the ICN via a new proposal). Turland choice or was in the interests of long-term security. One pointed out that there was a precedent in the ICN for names member of the NCF noted that none of the three centres had to be protected against unlisted names in Appendix IIB which any mandate to promote itself to the role of “primary hub”. comprised family names of bryophytes and spermatophytes Synchronization or mirroring of the three databases was to be retained with precedence over any unlisted synonyms. emphasized as essential by several respondents. Another Redhead added that there was a history of fungal drift away NCF member was of the view that the evaluation period from the core of the ICN where some common botanical extended to 2017, at which time functionality of the system practices had proved to be impractical when applied to fungi. might be better evaluated. We note, however, that it is only Kirk did not see any problem with having lists protected the MoC that runs until 2017, while the ICN rules that any *!‡" through the existing conservation and rejection procedures. by a subsequent IMC; the next IMC being in 2018. Peter Demoulin was not against the protection principle, and

VOLUME 5 · NO. 2 451 452 ARTICLE

Table 1.>#!{‹OP$$ˆ‹|$ red bold type). Topic Question (Explanatory comments in [ . . . ] brackets) Number of votes Yes No Percentage “Yes“ Percentage“Yes” votes / Number of / Total number of votes cast Questionnaires returned

REGISTRATION 1 Fungal Names (hosted by the Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing, CHina) 86 56 30 65.1 % 47.8 % 2 Index Fungorum (hosted by Landcare NZ and Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, UK) 108 86 22 79.6 % 73.5 % 3 MycoBank (owned by IMA, hosted by the CBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre, 113 113 0 100.0 % 95.7 % Utrecht, The Netherlands)

4 Would you favourably view [making the registration database the only place for valid 96 58 38 60.4 % 49.7 % publication]? PROTECTED NAMES 5 Do you favour the creation of lists of such protected names [i.e. ones protected 106 94 12 88.6 % 80.3 % against listed and unlisted names]? 6 Do you favour the creation of a Iist of suppressed fungal names? 101 49 52 48.5 % 41.8 % Redhead etal. 7 The new lists should be referred to as “protected” (names to be used) and 95 84 11 88.4 % 71.7 % “suppressed” (names not be used) 8 The current list of “sanctioned” publications (i.e. works in which the names used 83 43 40 51.8 % 36.8 % are protected from any competing names) should be extended (i.e. not restricted to selected works of Fries and Persoon) 9 The term “sanctioned” should be replaced by “protected” and the accepted names 80 51 29 63.8 % 43.5 % in the former sanctioning works should be incorporated into the protected lists. 10 Provided that the term “sanctioned” is replaced by “protected”, the use of the “:” 71 51 20 71.8 % 43.5 % indicating the sanctioned status of a name should be discontinued FORGOTTEN NAMES

11 In principle, names published before a set date (e.g. 1900) and not included in the 101 43 58 42.5 % 36.7 % appointed repositories of names should no longer be treated as validly published 12 In principle, names not used (except in lists of synonymy or compilations of literature 102 48 54 46.6 % 41.0 % records but unrecognized) for 60 years are not allowed to displace currently accepted and used names for the same taxon PLEOMORPHIC FUNGI

13 [[ 101 94 7 93.0 % 80.3 % equally nomenclaturally when determining which name should be adopted 14 In principle, if prior to 2013, in naming a newly discovered morph of a species, an 84 73 11 86.9 % 62.3 % IMA FUNGUS author used the same species epithet as the adopted earlier species name, the later name should be treated as a new combination (if it does not violate other rules) and not a new species name (and the author citation corrected accordingly) IMC10 Nomenclature Sessions Report ARTICLE 64.9 % 38.4 % 52.9 % 85.7 % 76.9 % 90.5 % 88.8 % returned Questionnaires / Total number of / Total Percentage“Yes” Percentage“Yes” 89.4 % 44.0 % 67.3 % 95.2 % 84.9 % 97.2 % 93.6 % votes cast votes / Number of 9 16 76 45 57 90 106 3 104 7 7 11 85 92 62 30 1 11 102 105 100 5 106 109 $ #[ Exemptions for lichen-forming fungi preventing their names being included in lists of protected and suppressed names should be removed, so that all fungal are treated equally regardless of their biology Subject to development of minimum standards, permit the naming fungi known only as environmental sequences (i.e. with no specimens or cultures) $†*+$ accepted € + ‰{ † ’‹{“ ] ] ] Require a statement of the features that distinguish new taxon from those already known (i.e. a diagnosis) for valid publication (with or without a full description) Total number of questionnaires returned with at least one question answered Total The Nomenclature Committee for Fungi (NCF) members should be appointed by International Mycological and not Botanical Congresses In general decisions peculiar to fungal nomenclature should be voted at International Mycological and not International Botanical Congresses 15 18 17 16 19 21 20 LICHENIZED FUNGI TYPIFICATION Table 1. (Continued). Table Topic Question (Explanatory comments in [ . ] brackets) Number of votes Yes No Percentage “Yes“ DIAGNOSES GOVERNANCE

VOLUME 5 · NO. 2 453 454 ARTICLE

Comments: Oneparticipant % ofsupportindicatedintheQuestionnaire. Lists ofNames(Q.7),whichwasconsistentwiththe88–90 terms “protected”and“suppressed”forthenewcategoriesof in supportand51%againsttheballot. helpful incertainfungalgroups.Q.6receivedjust49%votes of listssuppressednamesshouldbeleft,asitmight considered somewhatabstract.Redhead 6), butPennycook preparation ofseparatelistssuppressedfungalnames(Q. 88 %insupport.Onlyonepersonpresentwasagainstthe listed names,andtheQuestionnaires(Q.5)concurred,with the newlistsbeingprotectedagainstunlistedaswellany (2000) wouldnotcurrentlyhavethesamestanding. it retainsitsstatusornot,theupdateofthatlistbyPittetal. ICN it wasagreeddid.Redhead had beendiscussedbytheEditorialCommitteeofICNand remained forthelistof that somemycologistshadquestionedwhetherthisstatusstill be recoveredfromoldherbariummaterial. he hadfoundthatinthecaseofTrichoderma , sequencescould unused names. old driedculturesandspecimenswhichwerethetypesoflong- especially asDNA maybecomemoreeasilyrecoverablefrom the protectionofnamesinthatlistoverunlistednames, $\ defeated atthe Tokyo IBCin1993,butwasafraidoflonglists had beeninfavourofthe“NamesCurrentUse”initiative followed, indicated intheIndexFungorum entries.Ifsucharoutewere name hadprotectedstatus,Hawksworth to aquestionfromKirkashowmycologistswould know ifa in ordertogeneratelistsofnames forprotection.Inanswer mycologists reallyneededto take advantageofmajorworks \[[ of ProtectedWorks” (Q.7).Walter no objection,however, totheideaofdevelopinganew“List being discussed,proirtoitsadoptionin1981. in 1976whenabolitionoflaterstartingpointsforfungiwas proposed forextensiontothatnowinusebyKrisPirozynski in volumes2and3ofFries'SystemaMycologicum explained thattheconceptoriginatedfromDonkfornames Demoulin, generic namesbeingdeveloped. for particulargroupsweresynchronizedwiththeoveralllistof a slickerfeedbacksystembeused,especiallytoensurelists and withcaretominimizemistakes,wasconcernedthat Johnston underlying evidencetosupportwhyanamewasincluded. protected andsuppressedlistsofnames,providedtherewas names. was concernedwithprotectionoflistedagainstunlisted Section meetingin Tokyo in1993(Greuteretal.,1994a,b), which wasthesubjectofaspecialvoteNomenclature Those presentwereunanimousinsupportofusethe Of thoseintheSession,allbutfourweresupportiveof The listofnames sensu strictorevisedateachIBC.Debatably, whether John stressedthatthelistsneededtobecompiledslowly Redhead who hadaposteronsanctionednamesatIMC10, was especially concerned about retaining Pitt wasespeciallyconcernedaboutretaining Stephen observedthat it wouldbenecessaryto Trichocomaceae (Pitt&Samson1993), Trichocomaceae , andthatthematter endorsed this concern as Peterson endorsedthisconcernas

noted that it was not part of the noted thatitwasnotpartofthe expressed supportofboth Gams stressedthatthere thoughtthiswasbest feltthattheconcept Hawksworth Seifert feltthat Demoulin , andwas added added Redhead etal. had forgotten, butothers couldbeeasilyrecognized andtakenup. could notbelinkedtoarecognizable fungusshouldbe many reasonswhynameswere forgotten,andthosewhich existing descriptions. of valueonlyforspeciesorgenera withpoor, broad, ornon- Comment: Onecommentor support intheQuestionnaire(Q.12)and53%against. unused for60ormoreyears. The proposalhadjust47% of similarprovisionsbeingintroducedforfungalnames were complex,however, andtheSessionwasnotsupportive The rulesrelatingtoforgottennamesinthezoological included inthezoologicalregisterweretreatedasforgotten. with Coccidioides expected DNA barcode.Redhead gattii fromcatswherethreestrainsinCBSdidnothavethe recognize butmightmerittakingup,aswithCryptococcus ORP rejecting them. There were alsowhatRichardSummerbell there weremanysuchnamesandwasadangerin Questionnaire (Q.11) and57%rejectingtheidea. | Š‰ \ devalidating pre-1900namesthatwerenotincludedinthe There wasalmostnosupportintheSessionforideaof FORGOTTEN NAMES against earlierhomonyms made clearthatnamesonprotectedlistswerealso with theuseof“in”.Healsopointedoutthatitneededtobe citation exceptinfullbibliographiccitations,aswasthecase Comments: Turland have beenotherwise. “sanctioned” (Q.10),anditisuncertainwhattheresultwould unfortunate inbeinglinkedtotheabandonmentofterm discontinuation of“:”,butthephrasingthatquestionwas In theQuestionnaire,therewas71–72%supportfor and avastmajorityofmycologistsusedthe“:”correctly. Demoulin O•P and datesofvalidpublication;itwasalsoconfusingtoother still citedplacesanddatesofsanctioninginstead 33 yearsafteritsintroduction,evenwell-knownmycologists Redhead \ citations (supportedbyatleastoneQuestionnairecomment). as analternativethephrase“nom.sanct.”beaddedinformal May wasconvinceditshouldbedropped,andproposedthat responses (Q.9)supportedtheircombinationby60–63.0%. from namesonprotectedlists,althoughtheQuestionnaire was toretainthecategoryofsanctionednamesasdistinct always hadtobeseparated. The consensusofthesession that wouldbeprotected;nomenclatureandtaxonomy nomenclatural deviceanditwasnotaparticulartaxonomy In anylists,itwasstressedbyHawksworth clear astowhichnamesweresanctionedinanypublication. In thecaseofzoology, Demoulin Gams wonderedwhythe“:”citationshouldbesuppressed. , butHawksworthconsideredthattheissuewasthat, consideredthoseproblemswereoveremphasized was alsoanightmare. agreed withtheabandonmentof“:” pointed out that there were Johnston pointedoutthattherewere considered that this would be considered thatthiswouldbe observedthatthesituation pointedoutthatworksnot thatthiswasa IMA FUNGUS May felt Code

IMC10 Nomenclature Sessions Report

PLEOMORPHIC FUNGI LICHENIZED FUNGI ARTICLE

Art. 57.2 of the ICN requires, in the case of “widely used” pairs Redhead explained that when the proposal to exempt the [ names of lichen-forming and allied fungi from the newly [ proposed lists of protected and suppressed names was proposal to conserve or protect the latter has been submitted \! and rejected. Redhead noted that this was being ignored, no opportunity for wider discussions, and it seemed to be an as the process was too cumbersome; mycologists were not exception made for no apparent reason. As noted by Gams, prepared to delay publication while such formal procedures this was historical as lichens had always been exempted were in train. Kirk reminded the Session that the Preamble from the provisions of the former Art. 59. Triebel commented of the Code had stability of names of taxa as the key aim, that the situation seemed satisfactory at the moment and that it also had to consider the usage of names by others and Demoulin supported the provision, as he had done in outside taxonomy. There was no objection in the Session to Melbourne. May was concerned that this might lead to much the deletion of this provision, a view in accordance with the more work on the preparation of lists of protected names. 93 % support for deletion revealed by the Questionnaire (Q. However, Redhead believed that removing the exception 13). On the suggestion of Kirk, the Session agreed that the Comment: Demoulin did not consider the lack of a penalty views of the International Association for Lichenology (IAL) for not observing the rule an argument for its deletion. At should be sought. There had been a proposal to establish least one commentor indicated that he still would like the an International Committee for the Nomenclature of Lichens teleomorph name to generally take precedence over any and Allied Fungi (ICNLAF) by Lendemer et al. (2012) but this earlier anamorph name. had not yet been recognized by the IAL. Hawksworth noted that lichenologists were well-represented at IMC10, with 63 The issue of treating names proposed in the past for newly attending their dinner that week. The proposal to delete the discovered morphs of a species, which retained the same current provision was supported by 89 % of those completing epithet of the other morph, as combinations rather than the Questionnaire (Q. 15). new species, was recognized as complex. Seifert felt this suggestion to be terrible as it went against the nomenclatural acts. There was also the issue of the names having different TYPIFICATION types, and Gams stressed that these were sometimes now found to be different taxa. Hawksworth pointed out that Gams pointed out that there was already a Recommendation in the problem was that the older name would often be that the Code deposited in a recognized repository (Rec. 42A.1). Demoulin recombined without creating a homonym, and there were was concerned that we were developing too many rules, but often unfamiliar names that would then have to be taken Kirk saw this as only a minor extension of current practice. up. He did not see misinterpretations as any different from Hawksworth pointed out that MycoBank, and he understood cases where new combinations were made on the basis of [‡# # by the type of the basionym; the types proposed for the later for publication in several mycological journals. No objections names would thus lose their nomenclatural importance. to this proposal were made at the Session, and it received Kirk, however, noted that where there were such cases of 95 % support in the Questionnaire (Q. 16). misapplication they could be dealt with through the new lists An additional requirement for types to be deposited in of protected names. Redhead had reservations until the OPTriebel, but Turland proposals were tested, and Pennycook wondered if other pointed out that would depend where material was already options were possible. The problem was seen as most May \ acute in the older literature by Kirk, who added that there possibility of having a drop-down list of acceptable institutions were 100s of cases amongst the rust fungi where this would on repository sites. While the sentiments were supported, no be relevant. view on how such a list might be compiled in practice was Although the Session was ambivalent over this suggestion, put forward. with no consensus emerging, the proposal to treat such names Some mycologists were now routinely designating as new combinations rather than new species names was # [ strongly supported, at 86 %, in the Questionnaire (Q. 14). endeavouring to recover DNA from the name-bearing type to Comment: One commentor indicated that he would like to which they related. The issue was over the need to establish see guidance on this proposal (Q. 14) provided prior to the whether an existing type was “demonstrably ambiguous”; publication of the next ICN. Another could imagine some designation of an epitype for a lectotype in Linnaeus’s complex situations, but if the other state was really of the herbarium had been called into question as no attempt to same species, combinations should be used. recover DNA from it had been attempted (Jørgensen 2014). The Session recognized that this was a general problem that did not just concern fungi. Redhead considered the matter was

VOLUME 5 · NO. 2 455 456 ARTICLE

that, whileone DNA sequenceshould beincorporatedasa for thedatabasedholotype. One commentatorconsidered and/or “ex-typeculture”beregarded asa“secondaryisotype” indestructible holotype,andthat thecurrent“typespecimen” a barcodesequencebeaccepted asanunambiguousand specimen orculture.However, therewasalsoa proposalthat from anenvironmentalsamplemustbeaccompaniedby a “DNA sequences”. Another stressed thatanynamedfungus the GenomicStandardsConsortium;hepreferreduse of #P One commentatordidnotviewtheterm“environmental “species hypothesis”systemadoptedintheUNITEdatabase. invalid underthe considered thataregulatednamingsystem,outsideofand similar viewwasexpressedbyanothercommentator, who and genes,asnameswereintendedonlyfororganisms. A might haveanomenclatureoftheirown,asdidenzymes in themethodology. Demoulin unrecognized variability, different ITScopies,orsomebias sequences couldinsomecasesbeduetosequencingerror, yet uptothetask,andpointedoutthatapparentuniquenessof mental samples.Johnstondidnotthinkthetechnologywas mostly opposedtothenamingofsequencesfromenviron- Comments: Manycommentsweresubmittedonthistopic, idea fornow(55%). Questionnaire (Q.18)withthemajorityvotingagainst However, theproposalonlyreceivedsupportof44%in recognized asaproblemforwhichsolutionwasrequired. Labelling (ornaming)ofenvironmentalsequenceswas naming andcommunicatingsequencebasedspecies”. presentations duringaspecialeveningsession,“Classifying, explored duringtheSessions,butithadbeensubjectof Hawksworth highlighted inseveralpublications(Hibbett presentations atIMC10. The problemhadalsobeen of culturesorspecimenswasraisedrepeatedlyduring recovered fromenvironmentalsamplesintheabsence The issueofnamingfungionthebasisDNA sequences # Demoulin seen astoorestrictiveaninterpretationoftheCode existing type. The inabilitytorecoverDNA was,however, attempt wasnotpossibleormadetorecoverDNA fromthe considered thatastatementshouldbemadeastowhyan #+ not recoverablefromatype. A thirdwonderedwhichgenes guidance wasneededastohow“establish”thatDNA was introducing anepitype. Another agreedandpointedoutthat clause, itwouldbebettertoreformulatetherestrictionsfor Comment: A commentatorfeltthat,ratherthanmodifyinga Questionnaire (Q.17). proposed, buttheconceptwassupportedby67%in see aparticularadvantageintheactualchangewording \< Demoulin didnotseethattherewasaproblem,as the phrase“demonstrablyambiguous”wasitselfambiguous. best lefttoindividualtaxonomists,andTurland commentedthat , whostressedthatknowledgeaboutthetypewas et al.2011). Time didnotpermitthetopictobe Code suggestedthatsequences et al.2010; Redhead etal. by should beprovidedandsubjectedtopeerreview. the substrate/host/environmentandphylogeneticdiscussion available, thecommentatorfeltthatadetaileddescriptionof describe anorganism.Incaseswheremorphologywasnot be recovered),itshouldnottheonlycharacteristicusedto possibly forolddriedtypematerialfromwhichDNA couldnot mandatory itemwhendescribingataxonomicnovelty(except within speciescomplexes. tree inferencestobeallowedfacilitatespeciesdescriptions commentator wishedsequencedivergencesorphylogenetic a requirementforvalidpublication(cf. Art. 38.2). Another those alreadyknown”tomakethisworkableifitwerebe statement ofthefeaturesthatdistinguishanewtaxonfrom opinion oftheauthor”wouldneedtobeadded“Requirea only adiagnosis. and adiagnosiscouldbeuseful,butwasopposedtoallowing Comments: the Questionnaire(Q.19). not. The proposaldid,however, receivesupportof84%in described fungi,whetherafulldescriptionwasprovidedor desirability ofrequiringdiagnosestobeprovidedfornewly Time constraintsmeantthattheSessiondidnotdiscuss DIAGNOSES what theviews andconcernsofalgologists were.Demoulin perhaps 12votescouldsway adecision. the abilitytotransfervotes,a handful ofpeopleeachcarrying $ mycologists. having multiplevotesatIBCNomenclature Sectionmeetings, to havetheviewsofmycologicalcommunityingeneral. of Hawksworthetal.(2009). The Subcommitteenowwished the Subcommitteewerecurrentlyinfavourofproposals future betakenatIMCs.Morethan60%ofthemembers of was thatdecisionsinmatterssolelyrelatingtofungishould in consensus withintheSubcommittee,butemergingview formal statusbutwereinformative. There wascurrentlyno asized thatatpresenttheNomenclatureSessionshadno #! should takeplaceatIMCs,buttherewasanissueofwhether that therewasgeneralagreementelectionstotheNCF Nomenclature CommitteeforFungi(NCF). issues ofdecision-makingandelectionsmembersthe (Hawksworth nomenclature offungiwhichhadbeenmadetothatCongress ICN inrelationtothegovernanceofmattersrelated given themandatetoconsiderpossiblechanges Fungi appointedbythe2011 IBC. The Subcommitteewas Subcommittee onGovernanceoftheCode May GOVERNANCE Gams drewattentiontotheissueofparticularinstitutions With respecttodecision-makingatIMCs,Mayemph- Discussions withintheSubcommitteetodaterevealed explained thathewasConvenoroftheSpecial May consideredthathavingbothadescription Hawksworth addedthatwiththissystem, and et al.2009). The Congresshad leftopenthe Turland notedthatthephrase“in Seifert wondered withRespectto IMA FUNGUS

IMC10 Nomenclature Sessions Report ARTICLE

Fig. 1. Selected photographs from the the IMC10 Nomenclatural Sessions. Photos: Scott A. Redhead and David L. Hawksworth.

had attended phycological congresses, and stated that they members, those making proposals and members of the had never experienced problems with the current situation; Permanent Nomenclature Committees. For mycology, the no nomenclatural discussions took place at phycological IMA could perhaps assume the equivalent role, involving also congresses. its regional committees. May drew attention to the value of the pre-IBC mail votes, May reported that there was no support in the and agreed that the situation with respect to institutional Subcommittee for institutional votes in any future mycological votes needed to be improved. The International Association Nomenclature Sessions. Turland explained that institutions for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) arranged a mail ballot of its were allocated 1–7 votes, and that the list was updated

VOLUME 5 · NO. 2 457 458 ARTICLE

the structureneeded forsuchaprocess. ] Johnston strongly opposedtotheidea of institutionalvotes.Writing in, Congress wouldradicallyreduce attendance;hewasalso concurred, commentingthatholding thesebeforeorafterthe not attendseparatenomenclaturemeetings. A thirdperson of mycologistsandgettheirattention,asthatmanywould the congresswasanexcellentwaytogarneropinions future. Another commented, however, thathavingthisduring a daybeforeorafterthemainCongressbeconsidered in and PosterSessions. Another commentatorsuggestedthat and thatitwasunfortunatetheyoverlappedwithlunch limited timeavailablefortheSessionsduringCongress, supplementation, byanIMC.Severalcommentsrelatedtothe "$ new candidatesbymembersoftheCommitteeasamajor as aformerSecretaryoftheNCF, hesawtheelectionof similar tothoseatIBCswereprovidedIMCs.Inhisrole decision-making wouldonlybeacceptableifprovisions Comments: Onecommentatorfeltthatthetransferof received intheballot. $\—`|# by IMCsandnotIBCs(Q.21),theSessionwasalmost the ballot.OnissueofmembersNCFbeingelected with justfouragainst;thatquestionwassupportedby93%in overwhelmingly acceptedbythosepresentintheSession, on fungalmatterstobetransferredIMCs(Q.20)was The proposalintheQuestionnairefordecision-making assuming aformalroleindecisionmakingatthe2018IMC. those attendingthemaincongressandthatIMCscouldbe IBC NomenclatureSectionmeetingsasaproportionof $ delegates andfeltthisauguredwellforthefuture. Questionnaires hadbeenreceivedfromabout13%ofthe at IMC10hadattendedtheNomenclatureSessions,andthat {——‰"<˜ covered bytheCodethathadbeenagreedat Tokyo IBC of proposalsfortheregistrationnewnamesallgroups Louis IBCin1999. This hadbeenakeyfactorintherejection point outthatthishadonlybeenanespecialproblemattheSt the darksideportrayedby from sendingnumbersoftheirstaff, Demoulin As thepoliciesofinstitutionscouldpreventthoseinstitutes pointed outthatthiscouldbedonewithmoderntechnology. considered advisoryandthatreal-timevotingwasneeded.Kirk Section meetings, were thrashedoutandchangesmadeinIBCNomenclature and pointedoutthatvotingcouldbedoneon-line. As details opposed tothecurrentsystem.Kirkbelievedindemocracy, changing numbersofstaff positionsinatimelyway;hewas \ the IBC,anddidmanagetohavesomemycologicalcentres of allocatingvotestoinstitutionswhenaVice-Rapporteur for Hawksworth The institutionswereseenashavingamoderatingeffect. its votestoadelegatenotfromthatinstitution(“proxyvotes”). periodically; aninstitutionalsohadtheabilityoftransferring Hawksworth wasnotconvincedthatthemycological community saidthathehadbeeninvolvedintheprocess ${‹| May explainedthatthemailvoteswere Hawksworth. Demoulin didnotsee wentonto Turland Redhead etal. Congress (seep.454). in anticipationofachangetheprovisionsat2017 did notallowthelatter, buttheywerebeingcontinuedwith were seekingprotectionforallnames. The currentCode cases wheretherewerecompetingnames,whileothers available tomycologistsatlargethroughtheICTFwebsite. or werestillinprogress. The availablelistsareallbeingmade lists tobediscussedintheSessionhadeitherbeenpublished will ultimatelybepresentedtotheNCFforconsideration. The to developconsensusforthenamesdiscussed.‘Theresults be inclusivetoallwhowantedparticipate,andattempt by theICTF. Forthisexercise,allgroupswereinstructedto the 2012CBSSpringSymposium,orwerecommissioned Groups thatwereeitherself-organized,convenedat subcommissions fromtheIUMS,andadhocWorking !\‡ < names competedonwhichtheywouldwelcomecomments. highlighting controversialcaseswheretwoormorefamiliar how theywereoperating,thecurrentstatusoftheirlists,and to giveshortpresentationssummarizingtheirmembership, propose forprotectionundertheMelbourneCode The variousworkinggroupsdevelopinglistsofnamesto LISTS OFPROTECTEDNAMES that thevote had beenbyashowofhands. Option(3) !€+ 1993) andgivenaspecialstatus asnotedabove.Pittdidnot list ofnamesforthefamilyhad beenprepared(Samson&Pitt him oftheNamesinCurrent Use(NCU)initiative. An NCU in asystem,butitwasmechanismplacetousewhen pointed putby up inwhatevertaxonomymycologistswishedtoadopt. As was guidanceastowhichspeciesepithetsshouldbetaken nomenclatural devicenottobeconfusedwithtaxonomy; it the productionoflistsnamesforprotectionwas a on Robert Samson,ChairoftheInternationalCommission Aspergillus and been published(Samson in Paecilomyces discussion: Trichocomacae in favourvs.2against. There were few otherproblemsin (3) wouldrequireonly18name-changes,andICPA voted8 and (3)RetainAspergillus minimize namechangesforthismedicallyimportantfungus; morphs; (2) As (1)butre-typifyonAspergillusfumigatusto %[ < { • Aspergillu species) whichfellintoaseparateclade. The situationwith [ species) overcompetinggenericnameswithtypespecies Commission wasunanimousinaccepting Aspergillus, It wasnotedthatsomegroupsweredealingonlywith Seifert describedtheprocessesnowinplace,which Hawksworth stressedtheneedtobeclearthat Penicillium and s (338species)wascontroversialandthreeoptions Warcupiella andDendrosphaera.Listsofacceptednames , butsomesmallergenerawerestillunder Turland, nameswouldneedtobepresented Penicillium Aspergillus Penicillium

et al.2014). vs. , and forallspecies. This last option May notedthatthisreminded Raperia (ICPA) explainedthatthe Talaromyces , Byssochlamys Talaromyces Penicillium hadrecently IMA FUNGUS wereinvited (330 (85

vs.

IMC10 Nomenclature Sessions Report

would leave Aspergillus as paraphyletic, and instead he published (Braun 2012), and that formal conservation and ARTICLE ]A. rejection proposals based on the analysis had been made niger so that name, which was extensively used in industrial (Braun 2013). The Session felt that this work had proceeded and food mycology, would not change under option (1) in an exemplary way. (Pitt & Taylor 2014). Mats Wedin saw advantages in that interpretation to avoid paraphyly, but Samson stated that more recent phylogenetic studies showed that the genus Yuuri Hirooka explained that the working group had been was monophyletic and not paraphyletic. Samson further convened by Amy Y. Rossman and Priscila Chaverri, who A. niger could were unfortunately not present. They had published a list be problematic as three full genome sequences were now of names for possible suppression or acceptance following available and all differed. discussion at a workshop organized by the Mycological Pitt gave a short presentation explaining that under Society of America (Rossman et al. 2013). Seven critical the proposals of Pitt & Taylor (2014), 11 genera would be decisions had been made, which meant that the following recognized in Aspergillus. If the present type species were generic names were proposed for protection: Clonostachys, retained, A. glaucus with a sexual morph in Eurotium, Fusarium, Hypomyces, Nectria, Neonectria, Sphaerostilbe, numerous new combinations would then be required. A list of and Trichoderma. Crous was unsure, however, whether the names to be adopted under that proposal was provided Clonostachys was best protected over Gliocladium. in Pitt & Taylor (2104). Seifert commented that the International Subcommission Hawksworth did not consider this the right forum to on Trichoderma and Hypocrea dealing with Trichoderma had discuss the matter further, and Taylor agreed. Seifert noted, voted 3 : 1 for the retention of Trichoderma over Hypocrea. A however, that there was consensus over Penicillium and full list of the accepted species names in that genus, including Talaromyces but not over Aspergillus. necessary new combinations, was currently being prepared for publication by Gary J. Samuels. Colletotrichum In the case of Fusarium, which had been worked on by the Bevan Weir explained that the working group had 15 ISPP International Subcommission on Fusarium Systematics, \ it was noted that there was still an issue as to how that genus Colletotrichum over Glomerella, which the group supported. They strongly supported the idea of a list of protected names, generic name should be retained in a broad sense (Geiser but there was little support for the preparation of any list of et al. 2013). names to be suppressed. There was a particular need to Joey W. Spatafora explained that he was convenor of a protect the well-established name C. gloeosporioides. The working group of 21 mycologists who had been examining lists they were preparing would cover about 112 species, implications for names in Ophiocordycipitaceae, and a report and they were providing full details of all available ex-type of their work had recently been published (Quandt et al. cultures including barcode sequences. 2014). In deciding which names to prefer, they had considered monophyly, priority, usage, and clarity of the generic concept. Dothideomycetes A consensus had been built, and a number of name changes Nalin Wijayawardene introduced the work on this major had been made, mainly as a result of the decision to accept group, which in addition to mycologists listed on the web, Tolypocladium. The family Cordycipitaceae was now being had involved many others. Information had been collected examined by a group convened by Ryan Kepler. In that case there was a problem in that if Beauveria were accepted that by sexual or asexual morph types. In deciding which names would render Cordyceps polyphyletic; a consensus still had to adopt, they had considered the availability of cultures and to be reached on that point. molecular data, the number of epithets, which was the oldest Leotiomycetes + $$ % Seifert introduced the work on this class in the absence publication (Wijayawardene et al. 2014). of its convenor, Peter Johnson, and drew attention to Six generic names required critical decisions, of which the recently published report (Johnston et al. 2014). Of the most controversial were Stemphylium vs. Pleospora, especial concern had been Botrytis vs. Botryotinia, but the Pyrenophora vs. Drechslera, and Sphaerellopsis vs. International Botrytis Symposium which had met in June Eudarluca. Gams considered it was important to consider 2013 favoured the former name. Other issues that were a matter of debate were: Monilinia vs. Monilia, Oculimacula vs. more homogeneous. Redhead wondered whether “better Helgardia, Phialocephala vs. Phaeomollisia, and Scytilidium P vs. Xylogone. They had listed all cases where there were Cannon cautioned the Session to recall the situation with competing names and made recommendations, many of Botryosphaeria. Finally, Hyde urged delegates to e-mail him which were not controversial. There was, however, some if they had strong opinions on any particular cases. $[ of their usage by amateur mycologists. Demoulin indicated Erysiphales that he would have liked Monilia to remain, but Seifert In the absence of Uwe Braun, the Session noted that a pointed out that Monilinia was now extensively used in plant detailed analysis of cases requiring attention had been quarantine legislation.

VOLUME 5 · NO. 2 459 460 ARTICLE

Virgaria necessary newcombinations(Lackneretal.2014). Scedosporium infectionshadfavouredthelatterandmade not bemadearbitrarily. A workinggrouponPseudallescheria/ was notsomethingtobeafraidof,butthatchangesshould all medicallyimportantfungi. There wasafeelingthatchange Mycology (ISHAM)andtheywereconsideringimplicationsfor established undertheInternationalSocietyforHumanand Animal Weiland Meyerexplainedthataworkinggrouphadbeen Medical fungi list induecourse. are welcomedsothattheycan beincorporatedinarevised Sessions, butcorrectionsand commentsfromallmycologist Congress. unprotected untilafterthe 2023 InternationalBotanical without suchalistmanygenericnamesinusewouldremain of spaceconstraints. The compilerswereconcernedthat on thewebsite,butwereomittedfromprintedlistbecause Congress. Placesofpublicationandtypespeciesarelisted the initiative’s website(www.generaoffungi.org) priortothe end of2012hadbeenaddedandarevisedversionplacedon various internationalmeetings,namespublisheduptothe O]"P fungi. As aconsequenceofinputsreceivedsincepublication Basidiomycota no suchworkinggroups.Forexample,thelistincludesall all thevariousworkinggroups,andfungiforwhichtherewere mycologists, andtookintoaccountthenamesfavouredby names available. This hadreceivedinputfromnumerous to 1January2000,outofthe17,072validlypublishedgeneric for possibleprotectionacrossallgroupsoffungiintroducedup Kirk Generic names(allfungi) Pestalotiopsis more discussion: some competingnamesthatwouldrequireadecisionafter needed tobetaken,butintheorderasawholetherewere family (Stadler from manymycologists,leadingtoapositionpaperonthat working grouponXylariaceae Marc Stadler on 18–19 April 2015. a meetingtheCommitteewasconveningatCBSinUtrecht be polyphyletic. These issuesweretobediscussedfurtherat Filobasidiella had beenconsideringmorerecently, therewasanissueof the caseofbasidiomycetousyeasts,whichCommittee clade fromthetypespeciesofgenus,C.tropicalis as thepathogenic (Daniel !! ! Systematics andNomenclatureoftheIUMSInternational [ Teun Boekhoet vs. Time didnotpermitthis listtobediscussedduringthe et al.(2013)hadpublishedalistof6,995genericnames Discoxylaria vs.Ascovirgaria et al.2014). The mainproblemwaswithCandida

explainedthattheyhadnotaformal vs.

vs. , et al.2013).Nocriticaldecisionsinthefamily Myxomycota, Arthinium Cryptococcus Pestalosphaeria , C. albicans Monographella

vs. Apiospora Oomycota, andlichen-forming , buthadreceivedinformation , andFilobasidium belongedtoadifferent , Seiridium

vs. , Hypocreodendrom

vs. Microdochium Eutypa, and provedto Redhead etal. . In , ,

used namescouldbedropped. names becamemoregenerallyaccepted,thehistorically policy foranyjournaldealingwithfungalnames. As thenewer words, andencouraged(orenforced)asamatterofeditorial this dualusageshouldalsobeencouragedinlistsofkey Ophiocordyceps sinensis by itsfamiliarnameinsubsequentdiscussion,forexample # person wishedauthorstocitethecurrentlyacceptedname being used. support themwereavailable. $ countries couldhelpincontainingthecostsofthisiffundsto ™ used fortaxondelimitation,butfeltifmanywerethat nomenclatural changescouldnotbestopped. them felloutsidetherevisedconcept,butacknowledgedthat generic leveloftenrevealedthatsomespeciesdescribedin named species. ITS sequences,andsporemorphologysplitintosixseparately Colletotrichum gloeosporioides considered thatitwasnotpracticaltohaveisolatesof over-reliance onmolecularphylogeneticmethods.One apparently exponentialgrowthinspeciesnamesandan wider mycologicalcommunityhere. relate tothequestions,butaredrawnattentionof A fewcommentsmadeontheQuestionnairesdidnotdirectly OTHER MATTERS to beconsidered informulatingproposals forchanges topics. The NomenclatureSessionwishedthoseviews for mycologiststoexpresstheir viewsonawiderangeof relating tonomenclature,but hadprovidedanopportunity IMC10 hadnomandatetotake decisionsonothermatters some abstentions,butnoonevotingagainst: approved by63delegatesthenpresentintheSession,with of responsestotheQuestionnaire,followingtextwas some discussion,andtakingnoteofapreliminaryanalysis of nomenclaturalinformationonfungi(seeabove). After decisions oftheNCFonappointmentrepositories IMC10 hadbeenchargedbytheICNwithratifying RESOLUTIONS In viewofthechangingnamesfungi,yetanother One commentatorindicatedthathewouldlikemycologists A fourthwasconcernedatthevarietyofsequencesbeing Another wasconcernedthatphylogeneticstudiesatthe Several respondentsexpressedconcernoverthe Index Fungorum,andMycoBank,beaccepted. namely torecognizemultiplerepositories:FungalNames, algae, fungi,andplants,made7 August 2014regarding Article 42oftheInternationalCodeNomenclaturefor decision ofitsNomenclatureSessionwithrespectto Congress, inBangkok,Thailand,resolvesthatthe Resolution 1: The Tenth InternationalMycological andCordycepssinensis fromthesamehost,identical IMA FUNGUS . Hefelt IMC10 Nomenclature Sessions Report

in the rules at the subsequent IBC in 2017. Therefore, $ ARTICLE the Nomenclature Session, at its last meeting during the Phytopathology 103: 400–408. Congress, also approved the following Resolution. The Greuter W, Barrie FR, Burdet, HM Chaloner WG, Demoulin V, et decision was unanimous with none of the delegates present al. (eds) (1994b) International Code of Botanical Nomenclature voting against: (Tokyo Code) adopted by the Fifteenth International Botanical Congress, Yokohama, August-September 1993. [Regnum Resolution 2: IMC10 notes the views expressed in œ*{‰{‚•‚%<Ÿ[ the responses of delegates to the questionnaire given Greuter W, McNeill J, Barrie FR (1994a) Report on botanical to all registrants at this Congress with respect to future M{——‰Englera 14: 1–265. directions for the nomenclature of fungi, and ask that they Hawksworth DL (2011) A new dawn for the naming of fungi: impacts be taken into account in formulating changes in the rules of decisions made in Melbourne in July 2011 on the future for consideration at the International Botanical Congress publication and regulation of fungal names. MycoKeys 1: 7–20; in 2017. IMA Fungus 2: 155–162. Hawksworth DL (2014) Possible house-keeping and other draft These two Resolutions were presented by Redhead to the proposals to clarify or enhance the naming of fungi within the new president of the International Mycological Association International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Keith Seifert), who then presented them to the Closing (ICN). IMA Fungus 5: 31–37. Plenary Session of the Congress (incorporating the General Hawksworth DL, Crous PW, Dianese JC, Gryzenhout M, Norvell Assembly of the International Mycological Association) on 8 LL, Seifert KA (2009) Proposals to amend the Code to make it August 2014, where they were adopted unopposed. clear that it covers the nomenclature of fungi, and to modify the The views expressed in the IMC10 Nomenclature governance with respect to names of organisms treated as fungi. Sessions, as recorded here, and in responses to the Taxon 58: 658–659; and Mycotaxon 108: 1–4. Questionnaire, will be taken into account in the drafting and Hawksworth DL, Crous PW, Redhead SA, Reynolds DR, Samson development of formal proposals for consideration by the IBC RA, et al. (2011) The Amsterdam Declaration on Fungal in 2017. Nomenclature. IMA Fungus 2: 105–112. Hibbett DS, Ohman A, Glotzer D, Nuhn M, Kirk PM, Nilsson RH (2011) Progress in molecular and morphological taxon discovery ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS $ sequences. Fungal Biology Reviews 25: 38–47. We are indebted to Janet Jennifer Divinagracia Luangsa-ard for ^ €> < ‚+ < ^‚ > + $$ ˜ making arrangements for the Nomenclature Sessions. We are also (2014) Recommendations on generic names competing for use indebted to the Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin- in Leotiomycetes (). IMA Fungus 5: 91–120. Dahlem and the International Association for Plant Taxonomy for Jørgensen PM (2014) Notes on the new Example 9 in Article 9.8 enabling N.J. to participate, and to the British Mycological Society of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and for a grant towards the costs of D.L.H. We also thank Tom May for plants. Taxon 63: 132–133. providing a review of this report. Kirk PM, Stalpers JA, Braun U, Crous PW, Hansen K, et al. (2013) A without-prejudice list of generic names of fungi for protection under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, REFERENCES and plants. IMA Fungus 4: 381–443. ˜¢£<˜˜‡+<+et al. (2014) Anonymous (2014) Genera and Genomes symposium. IMA Fungus Proposed nomenclature for Pseudallescheria, Scedosporium 5: (6)–(9). and related genera. Fungal Diversity 67: 1–10. Braun U (2012) The impacts of the discontinuation of dual Lendemer JC, Benatti MV, Esslinger TL, Haffelner J, Hodkinson nomenclature of pleomorphic fungi: the trivial facts, problems, BP, et al. (2012) Notice of the formation of the International and strategies. IMA Fungus 3: 81–86. Committee for the Nomenclature of Lichens and Allied Fungi Braun U (2013) (2210–2232) Proposals to conserve the teleomorph- (ICNLAF). Opuscula Philolichenum 11: 1–3. Blumeria ] McNeill J, Barrie FR, Burdet HM, Demoulin V, Hawksworth DL, et Oidium ] ] al. (eds) (2006) International Code of Botanical Nomenclature ] (Vienna Code) adopted by the Seventeenth International (Ascomycota: Erysiphaceae). Taxon 62: 1328–1331. Botanical Congress, 2005. [Regnum Vegetabile Vol. 146.] Daniel H-M, Lachance M-A, Kurtzman CP (2014) On the Ruggell: A. R. G. Ganter Verlag. Candida and other McNeill J, Barrie FR, Buck WR, Demoulin V, Greuter W, et al. anamorphic ascomycetous genera based on phylogenetic (eds) (2012) International Code of Nomenclature for algae, circumscription. 106 : 67–84. fungi, and plants (Melbourne Code) adopted by the Eighteenth Flann C, Turland N, Monro AM (2014) Report on botanical International Botanical Congress Melbourne, Australia, July nomenclature—Melbourne 2011. XVIII International Botanical 2011. [Regnum Vegetabile No. 154.] Königstein: Koeltz Congress, Melbourne: Nomenclature Section, 18–22 July 2011. < Phytokeys 41: 1–289. Norvell LL, Hawksworth DL, Petersen RH, Redhead SA (2010) IMC9 Geiser DM, Aiki T, Bacon CW, Baker SE, Bhattacharyya MB, et al. Edinburgh Nomenclature Sessions. Mycotaxon 113: 503–511; ’‹{‰ › • Fusarium IMA Fungus 1: 143–147.

VOLUME 5 · NO. 2 461 462 ARTICLE

Pitt JA, Taylor JW(2014)Aspergillus, Pitt JI,SamsonRA,FrisvadJC(2000)Listofacceptedspeciesand Pitt JI,SamsonRA (1993)Speciesnamesincurrentusethe Quandt CA,KeplerRM,GamsW, Araújo JPM,BanS,etal. Redhead SA,NorvellLL (2012)MycoBank,IndexFungorum, International CodeofNomenclature. Publishers. Harwood Academic of ModernTaxonomic MethodsforPenicilliumand Aspergillus their synonymsinthefamilyTrichocomaceae 128:13–57. Trichocomaceae Ophiocordycipitaceae (2014) Phylogenetic-basednomenclaturalproposalsfor Tolyplocladium ‡* epositories for2013. * ‡ (SamsonRA,PittJI,eds):9–79. Amsterdam: . IMA Fungus5:121–134. ( Fungi, IMA Fungus3:(44)–(45). ( Hypocreales Eurotiales). itssexualspecies,andthenew ) withnewcombinationsin Mycologia Regnum Vegetabile

106: 1051–1062. . In: Integration Redhead etal.

Stadler M,KuhnertE,PeršohD,FournierJ(2013) The Samson RA,Visagie CM,HoubrakenJ(eds)(2014)Speciesdiversity ¢]^ < + £^ < ‚+ < >+ Redhead SA,NorvellLL (2013)ReportoftheNomenclature Wijayawardene NW, CrousPW, KirkPM,HawksworthDL,Boonmee Fungus-One Name”(1F1N)concept. [O› 78: 1–451. in IMA Fungus4:41–51. et al.(2013)GenerainBionectriaceae Taxon 62:173–174. !‡{—•› names. FungalDiversity including proposalsfortheprotectionorsuppressionofgeneric S, Aspergillus, et al.(2014)Namingandoutlineof ( Hypocreales Penicillium : DOI10.1007/s13225-014-0309-2. and ) proposedforacceptanceorrejection. Talaromyces. Mycology Dothideomycetes , Hypocreaceae Studies inMycology 4:5–21. IMA FUNGUS Xylariaceae –2014 , and