A without-prejudice list of generic names of fungi for protection under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants

Abstract

As a first step towards the production of a List of Protected Generic Names for Fungi, a without-prejudice list is presented here as a basis for future discussion and the production of a List for formal adoption. We include 6995 generic names out of the 17072 validly published names proposed for fungi and invite comments from all interested mycologists by 31 March 2014. The selection of names for inclusion takes note of recent major publications on different groups of fungi, and further the decisions reached so far by international working groups concerned with particular families or genera. Changes will be sought in the Code to provide for this and lists at other ranks to be protected against any competing unlisted names, and to permit the inclusion of names of lichen-forming fungi. A revised draft will be made available for further discussion at the 10^th International Mycological Congress in Bangkok in August 2014. A schedule is suggested for the steps needed to produce a list for adoption by the International Botanical Congress in August 2017. This initiative provides mycologists with an opportunity to place nomenclature at the generic level on a more secure and stable base.

Introduction

The International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN; McNeill et al. 2012) provided for the development of lists of accepted names of fungi in all ranks that could be treated as conserved after examination and approval by the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi (NCF) and the General Committee (Art. 14.13). The Code also provided for the development of lists of names to be rejected (Art. 56.3). While the motivation for these lists was the ending of the provisions for the separate naming of different morphs of the same species, which became effective on 30 July 2012, there was no such restriction placed on the names that might be placed on the new lists.

Considerable progress has been made in the development of lists of generic, and in some cases specific, names to propose for protection by working groups co-ordinated by the International Commission on the Taxonomy of Fungi (ICTF). However, the rates of progress have varied, and there are many orders and families with no working groups. The procedures for the development, review, and approval of lists will necessarily be lengthy as they require much care over matters of bibliography, typification, and synonymy — and deciding which of two or more competing names the mycological community wishes to commend. While the Code does not state that final ratification of lists produced would have to await adoption by the subsequent International Botanical Congress (IBC), that is likely to be the situation in practice. Also as some aspects of the lists and their status will need to be clarified by amendments to the wordings in the current Code. IBC’s are held at six-year intervals, the next being in Shenzhen, China, on 23–29 July 2017; the Nomenclature Section, at which proposals to change the Code or adopt lists would be discussed is scheduled for 18–22 July 2017.

Acceptance of lists by the mycological community as a whole is desirable, and the best method for that would be through review, and adoption with amendments proposed, at an International Mycological Congress, i.e. on 3–8 August 2014 in Bangkok, Thailand. Following that Congress, the lists would be honed and submitted to the NCF (via the General Committee) for scrutiny and approval by the General Committee during 2015, so that the final lists could be published in 2016 for adoption at the IBC the following year.

At the Spring Symposium organized by the CBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre in Amsterdam on 10–12 April 2013, it was recognized that slow progress was being made on the preparation of lists for many groups of fungi, and dates in the suggested timetable (Hawksworth 2012) were being missed. In view of the urgent need to resolve which of competing generic names in particular were to be adopted, especially in fungi of applied importance such as medicine and plant pathology, it was proposed that a draft List of Protected Generic Names be prepared as a basis for discussion and made available for comment as soon as possible (Anon. 2013). The list presented here is in fulfilment of that proposal.

The Without-Prejudice List

The starting point for the preparation of the list presented here was the names of genera accepted in the latest edition of Ainsworth & Bisby’s Dictionary of the Fungi (Kirk et al. 2008), supplemented with bibliographical citations and type species information from the already scrutinized NCU-3: Names in current use for extant plant genera (Greuter et al. 1993), Index Fungorum, and MycoBank. We also took into account available major works and other compilations. These are too numerous to list here, but include the Outline of Ascomycota—2009 (Lumbsch & Huhndorf 2010), The Yeasts (Kurtzman et al. 2011), The Genera of Hyphomycetes (Seifert et al. 2011), and proposals regarding the choice between competing names in some families already published (Rossman et al. 2013, Stadler et al. 2013). We also drew on various works recently published or in press (e.g. Braun et al. 2013, Hyde et al. 2013). With respect to the names proposed for asexual morphs and their placement, the information compiled in Kendrick & Di Cosmo (1979) and Hyde et al. (2011) was of particular value.

In an ideal situation, the type material of the type species of all the generic names should be assessed, as stressed by Stalpers (2013). The scale of such a task is enormous, especially considering the number of mycologists with expertise to undertake such work. IndexFungoruml MycoBank holds information on 17 072 generic names that are considered validly published and dating from before 2010. Of these names, 767 are recognized as illegitimate (and a further 200 are rejected), leaving 16 105 legitimate generic names. Fortunately, lists of type species exist (e.g. Clements & Shear 1931, Greuter et al. 1993). Much information is also available in database form, as Index Nominum Genericorum (Plantarum) or as an Excel spreadsheet (Behrendsohn & Greuter 1997). However, numerous genera of fungi have not been considered in any of these lists.

The selection of names presented here is without-rejudice. That is, it is a document with no decision, that leaves all mycologists free to argue and that the contents are not to be taken as implying that they will be those eventually adopted. Nevertheless, this list has endeavoured to follow the developing views of working groups as their discussions continue, in addition to the publications cited above and the personal knowledge of the contributors to this list. Input from the wider mycological community is encouraged. Matters to be considered in making choices between competing names typified by different morphs have been summarized in Hawksworth (2012).

All fungal groups whose nomenclature is covered by the Code are treated here, including slime-moulds (Myxomycota or Mycetozoa), oomycetes (Oomycota), and lichen-forming fungi (see below). Names of Microsporidia, are excluded as their nomenclature is governed by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICN Pre. 8).

It is always easier to introduce a new generic name than to discover if one is already available in the past literature. As we do not wish to encourage oversights, but do wish to provide an opportunity for earlier names to be discovered, we considered it expedient only to include names published before 1 January 2000.

Here we list 6995 generic names with their author citations and dates of publication. A fuller version with bibliographical citations and information on the type species will be available to download as a PDF from the website of the ICTF. The list to be proposed for eventual adoption will include that information, but those elements are omitted in this article because of limitations of space. Separate files by order, with places of publication and type species, will also be available for download for those wishing to scrutinize specific groups at https://doi.org/www.generaoffungi.org.

Code Modifications and Clarifications

Because the concept of protected and rejected lists of names had not been discussed by mycologists at large prior to its inclusion in the Code, a number of matters require further modifications or clarifications. Three issues are noted here prior to the development of formal proposals.

Terminology

The Code does not give a title for the new appendices to the Code where lists of names to be accepted or rejected under Art. 14.13 and Art. 56.3, respectively, will be included. In order to avoid confusion with the lists of conserved and rejected names already in the Code, various possibilities have been aired by mycologists, such as “prioritized vs. suppressed” (Gams et al. 2012b), “list-accepted vs. list-demoted” (Gams et al. 2012a), but the self-explanatory “Protected” and “Suppressed” have been favoured (Anon. 2013). The term “Protected” is consequently adopted here.

Status of listed names

The Code currently states that names on accepted lists “are to be listed with their types together with those competing synonyms (including sanctioned names) against which they are treated as conserved” (Art. 14.13). This restriction does not address the issue of instability caused by the resurrection of long-unused or little-used names to replace widely used later names, as a result of either examination of previously unstudied type specimens or lecto- or neotypifications. We recognize that the Code provides mechanisms to avoid such deleterious changes, but the bureaucracy and time-scales involved can deter mycologist from following that course. Consequently, we suggest that names on the protected lists should be protected against all unlisted names. A precedent for this type of protection is seen in the Resolution concerning generic and specific names in Trichocomaceae carried at the Tokyo IBC in 1993 which urged “taxonomists not to adopt names that would compete with or change the application of any names on that list” (Greuter et al. 1994).

We stress that all unlisted validly published and legitimate names would remain available and could be used, provided that they did not compete with listed names. The existing sanctioning status for names treated in specified works of Fries and Persoon (Art. 13.1(d)) would also remain in force for non-competing unlisted names, and names already listed as conserved or rejected in the Appendices to the Code would remain so. In the case of competing names in the protected lists, priority would be by date, unless proposals to conserve or reject had been made and approved.

Coverage

The Code excluded “lichen-forming fungi and those fungi traditionally associated with them taxonomically, e.g. Mycocaliciaceae” from the new provisions in Arts 14.13 and 56.3 as lichen-forming fungi had traditionally been exempt from the provisions of the former Art. 59. This exception resulted from a proposal made from the floor, which was motivated by a concern that Art. 57.2 could be disruptive to the names of lichen-forming fungi. That rule stated that an anamorph-typified name that had priority should not displace a teleomorph name “unless and until” a proposal to reject the former or include the name on the protected list had been “submitted and rejected”. There was no opportunity for lichenologists to consider this matter prior to the Congress, but we consider these provisions superfluous. Spermatial states and thalli with no spore-forming structures are not anamorphs in the sense of the Code. While “morph” is not defined in the various editions of the Code, a lichenized thallus is the structure that produces a sexual stage, whether or not sexual spore-producing structures are present or not. Consequently, generic names proposed for lichen-forming fungi are included here.

Next Steps

The possibility of protected lists presents a major opportunity for mycologists to improve the stability of names, of which generic names are of particular concern. It is also vital that the lists are bibliographically and nomenclaturally rigorously checked, and that they are endorsed by the widest possible representation of the world’s mycological community. The ideal forum for such an endorsement is an International Mycological Congress (IMC). In order to have such approval by the 2017 International Botanical Congress (IBC), a list ready for scrutiny needs to be available at the 10^th IMC in Bangkok in August 2014. We envisage the following next-steps in the evolution of this without-prejudice list to a protected list.

* (1) Proposals for additions, deletions, or correction to this without-prejudice list to be submitted to Joost A. Stalpers ([email protected]) for Basidiomycota, and Paul M. Kirk ([email protected]) for all other phyla by 31 March 2014.

* (2) The above proposals to be compiled and presented to the “Genera and Genomes” symposium of the CBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre in Amsterdam on 24–25 April 2014. It is to be hoped that proposals regarding generic names from the working groups will be available also at that time.

* (3) Publication of a draft list of generic names for protection in the June 2014 issue of IMA Fungus, for further suggestions for additions, deletions, or correction to be submitted by 31 July 2014.

* (4) Discussion of the published draft at Nomenclature Sessions convened during the 10^th IMC in Bangkok in August 2014, taking note of changes proposed prior to and during the Congress.

* (5) Finalization of the proposed list of protected generic names, and formal submission to the General Committee (GC) by publication in Taxon (or otherwise as agreed with that Committee), which will refer it to the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi (NCF) for scrutiny by December 2014.

* (6) Publication of the NCF-scrutinized list in Taxon (or otherwise as agreed with the GC), incorporating the results of working groups that have not previously reported, and any other last amendments, received and approved by the NCF, in December 2015.

* (7) Submission of the above list by the NCF to the GC in January 2016 for its scrutiny and approval.

* (8) Adoption of the list by the 19^th IBC in 2017.

* (9) Publication of the list of Protected Generic Names of Fungi as an Appendix to the Shenzhen Code in 2018.

We did not consider it appropriate to produce a separate list of names proposed for rejection at this time. That would not be necessary for protection if status is accorded as anticipated here, and would have the disadvantage of rendering those names unavailable for use even though new systematic research showed that they should be recognized.

We encourage all mycologists to contribute to this important initiative, both individually and as groups. Our long-term interest is an improved and more stable system of fungal nomenclature that will not constrain the development of revised classifications as knowledge increases.

References

Anon. (2013) Progress on preparing Lists of Protected Names. IMA Fungus 4: 3–4.

Berendsohn WG, Greuter W (1997) Names in Current Use for Extant Plant Genera, database edition. Berlin: International Association for Plant Taxonomy.

Braun U, Nakashima C, Crous PW (2013) Cercosporoid fungi (Mycosphaerellaceae) 1. Species on other fungi, Pteridophyta and Gymnospermae. IMA Fungus 4: 265–346.

Clements FE, Shear CL (1931) The Genera of Fungi. New York: H.W. Wilson.

Gams W, Baral H-O, Jaklitsch WM, Kirschner R, Stadler M (2012a) Clarifications needed concerning the new Article 59 dealing with pleomorphic fungi. IMA Fungus 3: 175–177.

Gams W, Humber RA, Jaklitsch WM, Kirschner R, Stadler M (2012b) Minimizing the chaos following the loss of Article 59: suggestions for a discussion. Mycotaxon 119: 495–507.

Greuter W, Barrie FR, Burdet HM, Chaloner WG, Demoulin V, Hawksworth DL, Jørgensen PM, Nicolson DH, Silva PC, Trehane P, McNeill J (eds) (1994) International Code of Botanical Nomenclature(Tokyo Code) adopted by the Fifteenth International Botanical Congress, Yokohama, August-September 1993. [Regnum Vegetabile No. 131.] Konigstein: Koeltz Scientific Books.

Greuter W, Brummitt RK, Farr E, Kilian N, Kirk PM, Silva PC (1993) NCU-3: Names in current use for extant plant genera [Regnum Vegetabile No. 129.] Königstein: Koeltz Scientific Books.

Hawksworth DL (2013) Managing and coping with names of pleomorphic fungi in a period of transition. Mycosphere 3: 143–155; IMA Fungus 3: 15–24.

Hyde KD, Jones EBG, Liu J-K, Ariyawansha H, Boehm E [and 61 others] (2013) Families of Dothideomycetes. Fungal Diversity 63: 1–313.

Hyde KD, McKenzie EHC, KoKo TW (2011) Towards incorporating anamorphic fungi in a natural classification - checklist and notes for 2010. Mycosphere 2: 1–88.

Kendrick B, DiCosmo F (1979) Teleomorph-anamorph connections in ascomycetes. In: The Whole Fungus: the sexual-asexual synthesis (Kendrick B, ed.) 1: 283–410. Ottawa: National Museum of Natural Sciences.

Kirk PM, Cannon PF, Minter DW, Stalpers JA (2008) Ainsworth & Bisby’s Dictionary of the Fungi. 10th edn. Wallingford: CAB International.

Kurtzman CP, Fell JW, Boekhout T (eds) (2011) The Yeasts: a taxonomic study. 5th edn. 3 vols. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Lumbsch TH, Huhndorf SM (2010) Myconet Volume 14. Part One. Outline of Ascomycota - 2009. Fieldiana, Life and Earth Sciences 14: 1–42.

McNeill J, Barrie FR, Buck WR, Demoulin V, Greuter W, Hawksworth DL, Herendeen PS, Knapp S, Marhold K, Prado J, Prud’homme van Reine WF, Smith GE, Wiersema JH, Turland NJ (eds) (2012) International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Melbourne Code) adopted by the Eighteenth International Botanical Congress Melbourne, Australia, July 2011. [Regnum Vegetabile No. 154.] Königstein: Koeltz Scientific Books.

Rossman AY, Seifert KA, Samuels GJ, Minnis AM, Schroers H-J. [and 11 others] (2013) Genera in Bionectriaceae, Hypocreaceae, and Nectriaceae (Hypocreales) proposed for acceptance or rejection. IMA Fungus 4: 41–51.

Seifert K, Morgan-Jones G, Gams W, Kendrick B (2011) The Genera of Hyphomycetes. [CBS Biodiversity Series no. 9.] Utrecht: CBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre.

Stadler M, Kuhnert E, Peršoh D, Fournier J (2013) The Xylariaceae as model example for a unified nomenclature following the “One Fungus-One Name” (1F1N) concept. Mycology 4: 5–21.

Stalpers JA (2013) The road to stability. IMA Fungus 4: (19).