Supplement to Mycologia Vol. 51(3) 1 U U June 2000 Newsletter of the Mycological Society of America In This Issue -- The "PhyloCode" - - A Commentary Redhead Commentary ............................. 1-4 by Scott A Redhead Mycomics ................................................. 4-5 This is the$rst of a planned series of articles by systematists facing nomen- IBOY ........................................................... 5 clatural instability caused by the recent explosion of DNA-based informa- MSA Official Business tion. Below, DKRedhead, Curator of the Canadian Mycological Herbarium From the President ............................... 6-7 at Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada in Ottawa, considers the "PhyloCode" Minutes ...............................................7-10 and questions the advisability of rushing to dismantle the current Linnaean- Committees ............................................10 based International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. MSA 2000 ...................................... 10- 12 What is the PhyloCode? This has been a nagging question in my mind New MSA Undergraduate Award .......... 12 ever since I read the mini review by Hibbett & Donoghue (1998) in .............................. 1 Sustaining Members 8 Mycologia. That article closed with the statement, "We hope that this essay Forms will encourage mycologists to critically evaluate the alternatives, and per- Change of Address ............................. 11 haps join in the development of a new phylogenetic code of biological no- Gift Membership ................................ 84 menclature." Via Email I discussed with David Hibbett the possibility of Endowment & Contributions .............82 initiating an open discussion in Inoculum for the purpose of alerting MSA Society Membership .......................... 83 members to this looming issue, and to explore its possible repercussions. From tlze Editor ........................................ 12 I have been trained by guardians of the old school, but I am hardly what ABSTRACTS ..................................... 13-70 anyone would consider to be truly educated or scholarly. Anyone who knows Mycological News ...............................7 1-74 Latin and has read any of my independent attempts to create a Latin diagno- sis should not be eating or drinking while doing so because they may well Mycologist's Bookshelf .......................75-76 choke. I have also naively tried to follow and apply (without trying conser- Review - Genera of Bionectriaceae, Hypocreaceae & Nectriaceae vation - another option available) the International Code of Botanical No- Mycological Classifieds ........................... 77 menclature (ICBN) to the letter, and always try to accredit the first author or Posirions, Goods & Services, scientist properly. Never does one suffer so much ridicule as when they play Publications, Fungi with nomenclature. Therefore, I have been seasoned by my experiences. I Mycology On-Line ..............................78-79 know the system is not perfect and probably never will be. That being said, I also know that it works not too badly, normally. It works well enough for Calendar of Events ............................ 79-80 us to get on with everyday taxonomy and to apply the taxonomy to other - Important Dates - human endeavours such as surveys, antibiotic testing, determinations of pathogens, labeling of foods, and so on. So I am skeptical when I hear of June 15 - Deadline, Inoculum 5 l(3) people wishing to overthrow an established system. Yet I am also intrigued July 29-August 3 - MSA 2000, when I hear there is this new system; doubly so, because several of my Burlington, VT colleagues are working on phylogenetic analyses and have asked me to as- August 25-29 - MSA 2001, Salt Lake sist with the conclusions and nomenclature and taxonomy, and I have seen June 22-26 - MSA 2002, Corvallis OR some of the major changes coming. All practising taxonomists should pay at- Editor - But where is the PhyloCode? 1 1 tention to what is happening, I learned. To begin with, the PhyloCode is Lorelei Norvell, PNW Mycology Service under construction. It does not yet exist. It may in the future, but it doesn't 6720 NW Skyline Blvd right now. Therefore, to test it or to buy into it is very difficult. If I am Portland OR 97229-1309 USA wrong, I hope someone points it out to us, because I would like to test this 503.297.3296 FAX 503.296.6745 new code as soon as possible. The latest works appeared in two journals, Lorelei @ teIeport.com Taron and Systematic Biology, in 1999 and 2000, respectively. Cantino (1999) MSA Homepage - published a follow-up to a session held at the XVI International Botanical http://www.erin.utoronto.ca/-w3msd Congress (IBC) in St. Louis. The symposium he helped to organise drew a very large crowd and was one of the more contentious symposia held at the Commentary IBC. Cantino, in publishing this article, are not the subject of this paper; they to a generic name to create a binomial. stated that he realised they had failed to are members of a fundamentally Application of the binomial is anchored "...allay possible concerns about the prac- different category of biological entities to a type (a sort of touchstone). We tical ramifications of the new system" at than monophyletic taxa." Basically, must never go so far that we lose touch the IBC, and he made it clear that the what they were discussing were with our anchorlstone. If you are at all PhyloCode is under development, and cladograms with the ultimate ends cut concerned with where taxonomy might that it will be "a code of phylogenetic off (the presumed interbreeding head, you should read this paper. If you nomenclature." individuals within populations). If you were concerned when you sat in the The idea of 'phylogenetic nomencla- are a skeptic like me, you get an uneasy audience in St. Louis, I daresay you ture' is attributed first to an article by feeling this might be the first step in will still be concerned. The different proposals for naming species were What is a family? made by the different authors. They are for discussion. Apparently, they could What is a genus? not agree upon a set technique. They What is an order? involve running generic and specific names together or combining them in Or to put them other ways, various ways or ... adding numbers or at what point on a cladogram does one use code letters, and so on. There is an order name, continual reference to "the PhyloCode" or "a PhyloCode name," but of course a family name, there is no PhyloCode. This is the or a generic name? generation of such a code. After -- reading it I remained skeptical. It still de Queiroz & Gauthier (1992), entitled losing touch with reality. However, sounds like a software company that I "Phylogenetic Taxonomy," a term sometimes it is best to approach would not invest in because the coined to cover a branch of 'phyloge- problems from a new direction. What I product, still under development, faces netic systematics.' The authors - felt I needed to get a better feel for major obstacles. zoologists apparently primarily where this is going, were some Two other articles reinforced my concerned with reptiles - realized that concrete examples, because the skepticism. Both were applications of taxonomists face great challenges now PhyloCode was beginning to sound like these phylogenetic systematics prin- that DNA sequencing technology has a new software being advertised but ciples as regarding nomenclature been improved and previously unimag- still under developme'nt. following taxonomic revisions. I inable analyses and tests are available The articles in Systematic Biology looked up and read a paper by Jackman and revealing new relationships. They offer several more tangible examples. et al. (1999) co-authored by one of the correctly perceived that there would be One is a philosophical discussion of original authors of "Phylogenetic a problem in trying to name all how such a code might address the Taxonomy" (de Queiroz). The authors supposed monophyletic lineages (or 'species' name issue (Cantino et al. of this paper, which reports on phylo- clades). There simply are not enough 1999). The abstract begins, "Linnaean genetic relationships in lizards (specifi- taxonomic categories to cover all binomial nomenclature is logically cally Anolis lizards), investigated possible relationships. There being a incompatible with the phylogenetic dozens of 'species' (whatever they are), shortage of terms and classical taxo- nomenclature of de Queiroz and and demonstrated that at least three nomic categories, they also correctly Gauthier (1992)...." Of course if you other 'genera' were nested within the perceived that there would be contro- design a nomenclatural system that Anolis clade. In this paper, at least, they versy over applying the existing names excludes the interbreeding organisms, appeared not to change any traditional to different levels. What is a family? you have excluded what most call taxonomy. To quote from their discus- What is a genus? What is an order? Or species; ergo, you have created an sion, "Our data suggest that to put them other ways, at what point incompatible nomenclatural system. Phenacosaurus, Chamaelinorps, and on a cladogram does one use an order This should not be news. Their paper Chamaeleolis are all nested within name, a family name, or a generic presents 13 different ways to name Anolis and therefore all should be name? species (however you define a species). synonymised with Anolis. If taxonomic It is important