D" C005 Vol. 47(2) I?(-- -LILI~+I AprilISSN 0541 1996 -4938 Newsletter of the Mycological Society of America About this lssue An outline of the 1996 MSA Meeting Program is presented as well as information on the 1996 MSA Foray. The MSA Advisory Committee on Nomenclature (Gary In This Issue Samuels, Chair; Pavel Lizon and Dennis Desjardin) has contributed a commentary A Culture Still Cannot Be a on the issue of cultures as types and the first in a series of "exercises in ~~~~~~l~~~~lT~~~............ 1 nomenclature." This issue also introduces a potential new feature for Inoculum, the Exercises in Nomen- "Dialogue" column. Dialogue will include contributions which: 1) briefly add new clature 1 ............................... 2 data to papers published in mycological journals; andlor 2) brief dissenting On Writing Research comments on such papers. An editor for this column is needed if it is to become a Proposals.............................. 3 regular feature. The Dialogue editor's duties will be to receive and sometimes MSA official in^^^........... 5 solicit critiques of published articles and to obtain a response from the author(s) of 1996 MSAIAPS in^ in^.....,.. 5 the paper under discussion. The Dialogue editor would then assemble the material ne1996 MSA F~~~~............. 5 for the editor of Inoculum. Any volunteers? New Mentor Travel Fund Also in this issue, new information resources available on the World Wide Established 5 Web are listed (see "Mycology Online.") and Amy Rossman shares some insight News ................. into the art of writing proposals. Remember: Inoculum needs your input. This is News .............. 7 your newsletter. Share those good URLs, brief articles on topics of general interest, M~colog~Online .................... 7 reviews of books that are not strictly mycological, job advertisements, and calendar of Events ................. 8 mycological news. Deadline for the next issue is May 15. Dialogue ............................... 10 Mycological Classifieds ....... 10 A Culture Still Cannot Be a Nomenclatural Type! Important Dates by May 15 - Deadline for next Gary J. Samuels, Pavel Lizon & Dennis E. Desjardin Inoculum. MSA Advisory Committee on Nomenclature July 27-3 1, 1996 - MSA [In response to "Update to the Tokyo Code...", Inoculum 46(3): 4, 1995, by John Annual Meeting with David and David Hawksworth] American Phytopathological As was stated by David and Hawksworth (loc. cit.), the new, "Tokyo," International Code of Botanical Nomenclature provides for the deposition of material that is "permanently preserved in a metabolically inactive state by lyophilization" (Art. 8.1, Ex. 1). The Code further explains (Rec. 8B.2) that living cultures derived from this kind of type material should be referred to as "ex- holotype" or "ex-isotype" but that they themselves are not the nomenclatural type. First, it is important to understand the meaning of "nomenclatural type." In principle, each taxon name is ultimately based upon one collection that is deposited in a herbarium. That specimen is the nomenclatural type. If there is any doubt as to whether two or more subsequent collections are in fact the species in question, the nomenclatural type is the ultimate . .. of those vials to be considered the of deposit for lyophilized material, but . reference and arbiter of identity. It is holotype and others as isotypes? If the are they financially or otherwise pre- the taxonomist who determines typical nomenclatural type is divided pared to deal with a vastly increased proximity or distance of any given into two or more parts (isotypes), any load of material if the deposition of collection to or from the nomenclatu- of which may be distributed to other lyophilized nomenclatural types is ral type in identifying a collection. herbaria, one should ultimately be generally adopted? Most people don't ever refer directly designated as the lectotype and thus It has been our observation, after to the nomenclatural type, but either have some nomenclatural precedence many years of herbarium experience, depend upon reports from others (e.g., over the other parts that may be iden- that most fungi are well typified by monographers) who have seen the tical or not. herbarium specimens. In our work type, or they rely on their own reading 2. When a lyophilized nomenclatural with Ascomycetes and Basidiomy- of the original description. type or lectotype is sent on loan to a cetes, we have found it an invaluable A problem with the concept of scientist it will be completely de- practice to deposit a dry agar culture nomenclatural type as the foundation stroyed in the study. Unlike normal that includes the anamorph so as to of a taxon is that the nomenclatural herbarium practice, there will be no have the "whole fungus'' represented type, almost of necessity, provides specimen to return to the lending insti- in the nomenclatural type. In cases only morphological information for tution. No holotype or lectotype ma- where living cultures are important, or comparison with unknown collections. terial will remain as the result of even even essential (as in Trichoderma or There are fungi for which a dry reasonable study of the nomenclatural Fusarium, for example), various types specimen is useless as the nomenclatu- type. Is the borrowing scientist to re- of cultures (including agar tubes, ly- ral type. For example, morphology in turn a newly prepared lyophilized vial ophilized or ultra low temperature) yeasts is largely invariant, and in some to the lending institution? If the bor- can be preserved as "ex-type" cultures. Mucorales essential morphological rower does not have the capability of The Code (Recommendation 8B. 1) characters are not preserved in dry preparing a lyophilized vial, then recommends that a culture of some specimens. For these fungi some sort what? If the borrower does prepare a sort be derived from the nomenclatural of living culture is essential for charac- new vial, what is the nomenclatural type and be deposited in a generally terization of the taxon. In these cases a status of that part of the holotype? accessible culture collection. lyophilized culture is the best form for Does material remaining in the lend- In the end, we recognize that for the nomenclatural type. ing institution take some nomenclatu- some groups of fungi, the nomenclatu- ral precedence over material that was However, there are problems that ral type should be lyophilized or oth- prepared (hopefully free of contami- must be considered before the use of erwise preserved in a metabolically nation, but who knows?) subsequent lyophilized cultures can be generally inactive state. However, while ac- to the deposition of the nomenclatural adopted as the nomenclatural type for knowledging that the Code does type? many fungi. Thought must be given as permit the deposition of lyophilized to how we can include lyophilized 3. When all the originally deposited material as nomenclatural type, we do material into our traditional, herbar- material is depleted, as it certainly will not recommend that mycologists gen- ium-based procedure. This is not to be with economically important fungi, erally avail themselves of this option say that lyophilized material does not what will serve as nomenclatural type? until the questions that we have posed present a great potential. Rather it is ill Having a nomenclatural type, arcane are answered. We recognize that bac- advised for Mycology, at this time, to as it may seem, can be extremely im- teriology has used lyophilized material take up the practice of general use of portant in matters of international quite successfully as nomenclatural lyophilized cultures as nomenclatural quarantine and trade. types, and that mycologists are at least types before some questions have been as clever as bacteriologists in sorting 4. Where are lyophilized nomenclatu- answered and some provisions have out the problems inherent in the use of ral types to be held? Traditional her- been made. this medium. We simply feel that the baria can certainly keep lyophilized revisers of the Tokyo Code were pre- Following are some questions that vials that are submitted, but they can- mature in allowing this option for or- should be considered before one avails not replenish them once they are used. ganisms covered by the Botanical oneself of the provision of depositing They probably cannot check to de- Code, without broad discussion among lyophilized nomenclatural type mate- termine whether what is returned, in scientists and institutions of the real rial. the event that the borrower is required practicalities and consequences of to return a newly prepared culture, is 1. In the event that more than one , 9uch a provision. the same as what was sent out. Culture '. lyophilized vials are deposited, is one collections might be the logical place Exercises in Nomenclature I by Pavel Lizon, Gary J. Samuels, & Dennis E. Desjardin [These exercises should help non- ate applications of the rules of botani- An outline of the genera of poly- taxonomists better understand the cal nomenclature. For example the pores (A. R. Teixeira, Genera of Poly- rules of botanical nomenclature as terms valid vs. correct names are often poraceae: An objective approach. Bol. governed by the International Code of misunderstood and therefore misused. Chac. Bot. Itu (1): [I]-91, 1994), Botanical Nomenclature (Greuter, W., based on an analysis of morphological According to the Code a valid et al. (eds.), Regnum Veg. 13 1, 1994). and biol~gicalcharacters, illustrates name, i.e., a validly published name For more help, feel free to contact any inappropriate use of the term "valid" (Art. 6), is a name which was pub- member of the MSA Advisory for taxonomic decision. The list of lished in accordance with the rules of Committee on Nomenclature: Gary J. generic names (Chapter 4, p. 9) is ti- the Code (Art. 3245, H.9). Therefore, Samuels <[email protected]>, tled "Genera of Polyporaceae valid both taxonomically accepted (i.e., cor- Pavel Lizon <[email protected]>, or according the I.