How to publish a new fungal species, or name, version 3.0

M Catherine Aime,Paul M Kirk,Marco Thines,Amy Y Rossman,Marc Stadler,Tom W May,Takayuki Aoki,Andrew N Miller,Scott A Redhead,Andrey M Yurkov,Ning Zhang,Elaine Malosso,Conrad L Schoch,Robert Lücking,Kevin D Hyde,David L Hawksworth,Lei Cai,Konstanze Bensch,Pedro W Crous

doi:10.1186/s43008-021-00063-1

Abstract

It is now a decade since The International Commission on the Taxonomy of Fungi (ICTF) produced an overview of requirements and best practices for describing a new fungal species. In the meantime the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICNafp) has changed from its former name (the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature) and introduced new formal requirements for valid publication of species scientific names, including the separation of provisions specific to Fungi and organisms treated as fungi in a new Chapter F. Equally transformative have been changes in the data collection, data dissemination, and analytical tools available to mycologists. This paper provides an updated and expanded discussion of current publication requirements along with best practices for the description of new fungal species and publication of new names and for improving accessibility of their associated metadata that have developed over the last 10 years. Additionally, we provide: (1) model papers for different fungal groups and circumstances; (2) a checklist to simplify meeting (i) the requirements of the ICNafp to ensure the effective, valid and legitimate publication of names of new taxa, and (ii) minimally accepted standards for description; and, (3) templates for preparing standardized species descriptions.

Highlights

Scientific names are an essential link that serve to communicate biological information across many spheres of use
The ICNapf is revised at Nomenclature Section meetings of each, six-yearly, International Botanical Congress (IBC)—except for fungal groups, where changes that apply only to them form a separate Chapter F that is decided upon at each, four-yearly, International Mycological Congress (IMC)
Where a lecto/neo/epitypification is necessary the reasons for the typification act should be given. It should always be borne in mind that introducing a new scientific name is a responsibility, as it will remain in databases to be taken into account by all future researchers—even if it proves to be not validly published or a synonym of an already known species

Summary

Introduction

Scientific names are an essential link that serve to communicate biological information across many spheres of use. The Linnaean system, which is central to all scientific names, dates to the eighteenth century. The use of binomial names for species, drawing on Latin and latinized ancient Greek, is a legacy that has been incorporated into requirements for the description of new species, The relevant Code for Fungi as well as non-fungal groups traditionally treated as fungi, such as oomycetes and slime moulds, is the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICNafp, or the Code). The ICNapf is revised at Nomenclature Section meetings of each, six-yearly, International Botanical Congress (IBC)—except for fungal groups, where changes that apply only to them form a separate Chapter F that is decided upon at each, four-yearly, International Mycological Congress (IMC). The current ICNafp and Chapter F are, respectively, those of Turland et al (2018; https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main. php) and May et al (2019)

Objectives

Findings

Conclusion