Report on the Special Committee on the Nomenclature of Fungi with a Pleomorphic Life Cycle

Abstract

Historically, nonlichenized fungi in two phyla, Ascomycota and Basidiomycota, with pleomorphic life cycles may have more than one acceptable legitimate name with priority given to names typified by teleomorphs. This idea has been challenged amidst considerable prolonged debate. An intermediate step towards normalized nomenclature was made in Vienna through the introduction of teleomorph epitypes. A Special Committee was formed to provide guidance on another proposal to prohibit future dual nomenclature and to review the need for Article 59. Committee membership fluctuated between ten and twelve individuals whose opinions were divided over three options: (1) delete Article 59, (2) remove the option for epitypification, or (3) revise the Article further. The Committee reached an impasse and as a body could not recommend acceptance or rejection of any particular proposal. A set of proposals discussed by the Committee is made separately and independently.

Systematics and Evolution

“…Thus, mycologists have not always known whether or not the variously observed states of fungi represent the same organism, and multiple names for the same fungus inevitably accumulated in the literature. In 2010, as the next IBC in Melbourne was approaching, Redhead (2010b) reported on the efforts of the latest group to formally consider the matter in a representative way, the Special Committee on Nomenclature of Fungi with a Pleomorphic Life Cycle. Nevertheless, and with less than universal agreement, multiple names were allowed for certain ascomycetous and basidiomycetous fungi with so-called pleomorphic life cycles in early Codes for the sake of convenience of communication.…”

“…During the formalization of the earliest Codes of nomenclature, mycologists were already linking the different states of a number of fungi. Following the report by Redhead (2010b), proponents of a one-name-per-fungus system of classification felt an immediacy to act on nomenclatural reform. Weresub and Pirozynski (1979) presented a historical account of pleomorphic fungi and fungal naming.…”

One fungus, one name promotes progressive plant pathology

“…Already, in 2005, at the 17th IBC in Vienna, Austria, a Special Committee on the Nomenclature of Fungi with a Pleomorphic Life Cycle was appointed with the mandate to provide guidance on a proposal to prohibit dual nomenclature and to review the need for Article 59. However, the committee failed to reach a consensus and, as a body, could not make a recommendation for acceptance or rejection of any particular proposal (Redhead, 2010). Thus, the topic was again open for discussion at one of the nomenclature sessions at the 9th IMC in Edinburgh, UK, in 2010, leading to an extensive debate of the matter.…”

A new dawn for the naming of fungi: impacts of decisions made in Melbourne in July 2011 on the future publication and regulation of fungal names

“…More importantly, the Vienna Congress established a Special Committee to investigate the issue further, but unfortunately it was unable to reach a consensus ( Redhead 2010 ). Matters were becoming increasingly desperate as mycologists using molecular phylogenetic approaches started to ignore the provisions, or interpret them in different ways ( Rossman & Seifert 2010 ).…”

“…Proposals to address this issue were published before the Melbourne Congress ( Perry 2010 , Redhead et al 2010 ), but there were concerns over these. In consequence, a series of informal discussions was held in Melbourne, which involved the proposers and other concerned mycologists.…”