Abstract
The new rules formulated in Article 59 of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN) will cause numerous, often undesirable, name changes, when only phylogenetically defined clades are named. Our task is to name fungal taxa and not just clades. Two suggestions are made here that may help to alleviate some disadvantages of the new system. (1) Officially an epithet coined in a list-demoted genus that is older than the oldest one available in the list-accepted genus would have to be recombined in the accepted genus. We recommend that individual authors and committees establishing lists of protected names should generally not recombine older epithets from a demoted genus into the accepted genus, when another one from pre-2013 is available in that genus. (2) Because the concepts of correlated teleomorph and anamorph genera are often incongruent, enforced congruence leads to a loss of information. Retaining the most suitable generic name is imperative, even when this is subordinated to another, list-accepted, generic name. Some kind of cryptic dual generic nomenclature is bound to persist. We therefore strongly recommend the retention of binomials in genera where they are most informative. With these recommendations, the upheaval of fungal nomenclature ensuing from the loss of the former Art. 59 can be reduced to an unavoidable minimum.
Highlights
The new ruling and abandonment of the former Article 59 of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) has abandoned the intricacies of dual nomenclature for SOHRPRUSKLF IXQJL EXW DOVR VDFUL¿FHG WKH IRUPHUO\ UHFRJQL]HG SUHFHGHQFH RI WHOHRPRUSKW\SL¿HG QDPHV RYHU WKRVH RI WKH associated anamorphs (McNeill et al 2012)
According to the new rules, many teleomorph-generic names will have to be replaced by older anamorph-generic names in cases where each morph of a fungus can unequivocally be tied to a particular taxon
The examples below are given QRW WR FULWLFL]H WKH UHVSHFWLYH DXWKRUV ZKR WULHG WR ¿QG WKH EHVW VROXWLRQ IRU D GLI¿FXOW QRPHQFODWXUH )RU H[DPSOH ZKHQ DQ author did not give preference to the older anamorph-generic name against the corresponding teleomorph name, he/she still followed the new Code correctly which states (Art. 14.13 ICN): “...lists of names may be submitted to the General Committee, which will refer them to the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi
Summary
The new ruling and abandonment of the former Article 59 of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) has abandoned the intricacies of dual nomenclature for SOHRPRUSKLF IXQJL EXW DOVR VDFUL¿FHG WKH IRUPHUO\ UHFRJQL]HG SUHFHGHQFH RI WHOHRPRUSKW\SL¿HG QDPHV RYHU WKRVH RI WKH associated anamorphs (McNeill et al 2012). According to the new rules, many teleomorph-generic names will have to be replaced by older anamorph-generic names in cases where each morph of a fungus can unequivocally be tied to a particular taxon.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
