Fungal nomenclature evolving: changes adopted by the 19th International Botanical Congress in Shenzhen 2017, and procedures for the Fungal Nomenclature Session at the 11th International Mycological Congress in Puerto Rico 2018

Abstract

This article summarizes the key changes in the rules relating to the nomenclature of fungi made at the XIX International Botanical Congress in Shenzhen, China, in July 2017. Most significant was the decision to transfer decision-making on matters related only to the naming of fungi from International Botanical to International Mycological Congresses (IMCs). The rules relating to fungi are to be grouped together in a separate section of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN). The way in which the Fungal Nomenclature Session will operate at the upcoming IMC in Puerto Rico in 2018 is summarized and the timetable for new proposals is presented. In addition, approval for names included on lists of protected names to be protected against unlisted as well as known competing names were passed, as were some simplifications relating to the naming of pleomorphic fungi. From 1 January 2019, it will also be necessary to deposit details of lecto-, neo-, and epitypifications in one of the recognized repositories of fungal names in order for them to be validly published and to establish their priority. Various aspects relating to typifications were referred to a new Special Committee, with a separate Special Subcommittee charged with addressing the issue of using DNA sequences as types for all groups covered by the ICN. It is anticipated that the Shenzhen Code will be published in the first half of 2018.

The contribution of genetics and genomics to understanding the ecology of the mountain pine beetle system

“…To better understand the biology of the MPB system, it has been essential to identify key species in the system, particularly for taxonomically challenging species such as fungi. For example, it is estimated that only 3%-8% of fungal species have been described in spite of estimates of global fungal diversity in the range of 1.5-3.8 million species (Hawksworth et al 2017). This is primarily because morphological assessments of fungi are problematic; many diagnostic characters prove cryptic or absent at the time of collection, often leading to mis-identifications (Feau et al 2009).…”

“…In contrast, multi-marker approaches provided greater resolution of species (Roe et al 2010). In spite of the early warnings by Roe et al (2010), the broader fungal community has been slow to change and this lack of ITS resolution can still create problems (Hawksworth et al 2017). The consequences of such taxonomic confusion include artificial inflation or deflation of "species", followed by a lack of understanding about the ecology of functional groups or guilds, their geographic distribution, and the evolution and extent of pathogenicity and (or) symbiotic relationships in certain groups.…”

MycoNews 2019: editorials, news, reports, awards, personalia, book news, and correspondence

“…The first major list of which I am aware is that produced on behalf of the American Joint Committee on Horticultural Nomenclature; this started preparation in 1915 and published the first edition in 1932 and the names were to be adopted for not less than 5 years (Olmsted et al 1932). At last we have in mycology the authority to produce lists of "protected names", whether they are known to be threatened by other names or not, something first mooted in 1959 by the Danish mycologist Morten Lange (Gilmour 1959) but which was only fully realized in 2017 (Hawksworth et al 2017). Unlike standard lists, protected lists do not, however, recommend any particular taxonomy but only rule on what names should be retained if they are threatened by any competing names.…”

XI International Mycological Congress: report of Congress action on nomenclature proposals relating to fungi

“…Following changes to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN;Turland et al 2018) at the XIX International Botanical Congress (IBC) in Shenzhen, July 2017, provisions of the ICN that dealt solely with names of organisms treated as fungi were separated into a new section of the ICN, "Chapter F" (Hawksworth et al 2017). In addition, it was agreed that future changes proposed to Chapter F would be dealt with by the Fungal Nomenclature Session of an International Mycological Congress (IMC) rather than the Nomenclature Section of an IBC.…”

“…In addition, it was agreed that future changes proposed to Chapter F would be dealt with by the Fungal Nomenclature Session of an International Mycological Congress (IMC) rather than the Nomenclature Section of an IBC. Procedures for introducing proposals to Chapter F were outlined by Hawksworth et al (2017); proposals were published (Hawksworth 2018); a Synopsis of these proposals was presented ; and a pre-Congress Guiding vote on the proposals was held (May & Miller 2018).…”