Book of Abstracts (PDF) - International Mycological Association

IMC7 Friday August 16th Lectures
works. Lost in time are when the Codes of nomenclature
were written, when pleomorphic fungi were allowed
multiple names (i.e. Art. 49bis in 1910), or why? Murkier
are the dates when it was commonly accepted that fungi
had sexual and asexual morphs, or when teleomorphs of
Basidiomycota could be distinguished from Ascomycota or
from anamorphs. When were lichens and Zygomycota
added as exceptions to the article on pleomorphic fungi,
and why? While DNA sequence-based technology paves
the way for merging anamorph typified names with
teleomorph typified names, another nomenclatural and
taxonomic issue emerges, that of merged taxa typified by
grossly dissimilar teleomorphs (e.g. false truffles within
agaric or bolete genera and visa versa). At the generic
level, the nomenclatural problems presented by anamorph-
versus teleomorph-typified names mirrors the problems of
teleomorph versus teleomorph name conflicts that now
spawn ideologies leading to creation of a PhyloCode.
Future changes to the Botanical Code should consider these
two conflicts jointly and not separately because they are the
results of data generated by the same technology.
348 - Consequences of deletion of Article 59 for
economically important fungi
P.F. Cannon 1* & K.A. Seifert 2
1 CABI Bioscience, Bakeham Lane, Egham, Surrey TW20
9TY, U.K. - 2 Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre,
Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada, 960 Carling Avenue,
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C6, Canada. - E-mail:
p.cannon@cabi.org
Modification of the wording of Art. 59 has been the
preferred avenue of change for governing the application of
anamorph names. We will examine the consequences of
complete deletion of this article from the ICBN, and the
consequent loss of sanctioned status for teleomorph-based
holomorph names at all taxonomic ranks. In this scenario,
the oldest name of a species would be available for the
actual name in combination with the oldest generic name,
in line with priority, irrespective of what morphs were
described in the protologue. We consider this essential for
many groups of economically important fungi, where the
number of described anamorph taxa often greatly exceeds
the number of teleomorphic-holomorphs. For example, the
ratio of anamorph:teleomorph species is about 10:1 in the
Glomerellaceae, 5:1 in the Pleosporaceae, 3:1 in the
Trichocomaceae, 2:1 in the Chaetosphaeriaceae and 1.5:1
in the Hypocreales, Tubeufiaceae, and Microascaceae. This
approach will result in far fewer changes in binomials than
the alternative of retaining teleomorph priority. These
changes will have negligable effects on the names of
families or higher taxa. Since 969 of 1361 genera of
hyphomycetes and 196 of 602 genera of coelomycetes
currently lack known teleomorph connections, deletion of
Art. 59 would protect the status of these names even if
teleomorphs are eventually discovered.
110
Book of Abstracts
349 - Has dual nomenclature for fungi run its course?
The Article 59 debate. Arguments for retaining Article
59
W. Gams
Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures, P.O. Box 85167
3508 AD Utrecht, The Netherlands. - E-mail:
Gams@cbs.knaw.nl
Fungal taxonomy is mainly morphology-based.
Understanding the morphology of a fungus is part of
understanding its function. Many modern studies illustrate
the indispensability of morphology. Replacing
identification methods by molecular routines is a form of
reductionism to be opposed. The users' needs must not be
ignored. Permitting separate names for the morphs of
pleomorphic higher fungi conflicts with the principle of
'one species - one name'. No higher-rank classification of
anamorphic fungi is recognized and integration of
anamorph taxa in the teleomorph system is essential, but
anamorph morphology is inadequate to do this. Retaining a
separate anamorph nomenclature (particularly at the
generic level) has advantages in morphological
identification. The provisions of Art. 59 have grown
through time to satisfy the needs of identifying
mycologists. In many cases, the anamorph absolutely
dominates in culture and often also in nature; it often is
more differentiated morphologically than the teleomorph.
Complete integration of teleomorph and anamorph
nomenclature with all its consequences could work only if
a 1:1 relationship of anamorph and teleomorph genera were
possible. If the correlation between anamorph and
teleomorph species is not 1:1, retaining both systems is of
particular advantage. Abandoning Art. 59 immediately will
cause nomenclatural chaos; any solution will require very
complicated procedures (see detailed texts on CBS
website! ).
350 - Has dual nomenclature for fungi run its course?
The Article 59 debate. Arguments to reject dual
nomenclature
D.L. Hawksworth 1* , P.M. Kirk 2 & M.L. Berbee 3
1 Departmento de Biologia Vegetal II, Facultad de
Farmacia, Universidad Complutense, Plaza de Ramon y
Cajal, Ciudad Universitaria, E-20840 Madrid, Spain. -
2 CABI Bioscience, Bakeham Ln, Egham, Surrey TW20 9TY,
U.K. - 3 Department of Botany, University of British
Columbia, 6270 University Blvd, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4,
Canada. - E-mail: davidh@ucmail.ucm.es
Dual nomenclature, the practise of giving separate
scientific names to teleomorphs and anamorphs of
pleomorphic fungi, predates the governance of fungal
nomenclature by formal Codes. While there may be some
practical benefits of having identification systems and
separate names for the anamorphic fungi that are often
collected or cultured independently of any teleomorph,