AMPELOMYCES CESATI (FUNGI, SPHAEROPSIDALES).

Abstract

In the Klotzschii Herbarium vivum Mycologicum etc. Centuria XVII, 1852, along with Tuckeri Berkel. is a new fungus under the name of Ampelomyces quisqualis Ces. with the description: Oidium certo certius effectus, minime causa fuit in destructione vitis; ei consociata vidi plura: ... denique genus novum Mucoroidearum: Ampelomyces (Nob.) sporang. minutiss. ochraceis v. lutescentibus, brevi-pedicellatis, subpyriforribus, torulosis, plerumque basi strumosa, in tubam fere producto, raro subdidymis (ut sporae Mycogones), sporidiis oblongis repletis. With the valid description of the genus, the type species Ampelomyces quisqualis is considered also as being validly described (see ICBN 1966, Article 42). If also, as Rogers (1959) has stated, two of the cited characteristics (brevi-pedicellatis and apice in tubam fere producto) refer to part of the Oidium, it is clearly apparent from the other characteristics that Cesati recognised the fungus as an independent, new species, which was merely associating (consociata) with the mildew. So in my opinion Article 70 of the Code as Donk (1966) interprets it, is not applicable: with Ampelomyces we are actually concerned with a single organism, and not with a basically misinterpreted mixture of two organisms. Therefore Ampelomyces cannot be compared to the a priori wrongly ascribed genera Schrebera and Actinotinus. A comparison is possible with the genus Pouteria cited in the final paragraph of Article 70; this name was retained after it was seen which elements of the type were attributable to it. Also the fact that several authors, e.g. v. Mohl (1853, 1854) and Tulasne (1853, 1856), took it as being a fructification of the mildew, can in no way invalidate the first description. A later latin description is found in Saccardo (1884) who took the name suggested by de Bary (1869-1870), both calling the fungus Cicinnobolus Cesatii. This name must be rejected as illegitimate, there being already a valid name. The results of de Bary should be regarded simply as a useful correction and amplification. Since so far there are only a few species of this fungus known, and relatively few publications on it, there is no reason to propose Cicinnobolus de Bary as a nomen conservandum. In addition, the name Ampelomyces came into use again quite recently (see Linnemann 1968). It must be remembered that there seems to be no type material to which the name Cicinnobolus is attached, whereas type material of Ampelomyces quisqualis Ces. should be available in several collections in the Klotzschii herbarium vivum etc. (see Chaudhri et al. 1972).