IMA Fungus 7(2): 289-308, doi: 10.5598/imafungus.2016.07.02.09
Overlooked competing asexual and sexually typified generic names of Ascomycota with recommendations for their use or protection
expand article infoAmy Y. Rossman§, W. Cavan Allen|, Uwe Braun, Lisa A. Castlebury#, Priscila Chaverri¤, Pedro W. Crous«, David L. Hawksworth», Kevin D. Hyde˄, Peter Johnston˅, Lorenzo Lombard«, Megan Romberg¦, Rob A. Samson«, Keith A. Seifertˀ, Jeffrey K. Stoneˁ, Dhanushka Udayanga, James F. White
‡ Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, United States of America§ USDA, Beltsville, United States of America| Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory, USDA-ARS, Beltsville¶ Martin-Luther-Universität, Institut für Biologie, Bereich Geobotanik und Botanischer Garten, Halle (Saale), Germany# USDA-ARS, Mycology & Nematology Genetic Diversity and Biology Laboratory, Beltsville¤ University of Maryland, Department of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture, College Park« CBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre, Utrecht» Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Departamento de Biología Vegetal II, Facultad de Farmacia, Madrid, Spain˄ Mae Fah Luang University, Center of Excellence in Fungal Research, Chiang Rai, Thailand˅ Landcare Research, Auckland, New Zealand¦ USDA-APHIS National Identification Services, Beltsvilleˀ Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Biodiversity (Mycology), Ottawa Research and Development Centre, Ottawa, Canadaˁ Oregon State University, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Corvallis₵ USDA-ARS, Systematic Mycology & Microbiology Laboratory, Marylandℓ Rutgers University, Department of Plant Biology & Pathology, New Brunswick
Open Access
Abstract
With the change to one scientific name for fungal species, numerous papers have been published with recommendations for use or protection of competing generic names in major groups of ascomycetes. Although genera in each group of fungi were carefully considered, some competing generic names were overlooked. This paper makes recommendations for additional competing genera not considered in previous papers. Chairs of relevant Working Groups of the ICTF were consulted in the development of these recommendations. A number of generic names need protection, specifically Amarenographium over Amarenomyces, Amniculicola over Anguillospora, Balansia over Ephelis, Claviceps over Sphacelia, Drepanopeziza over Gloeosporidiella and Gloeosporium, Golovinomyces over Euoidium, Holwaya over Crinium, Hypocrella over Aschersonia, Labridella over Griphosphaerioma, Metacapnodium over Antennularia, and Neonectria over Cylindrocarpon and Heliscus. The following new combinations are made: Amniculicola longissima, Atichia maunauluana, Diaporthe columnaris, D. liquidambaris, D. longiparaphysata, D. palmicola, D. tersa, Elsinoë bucidae, E. caricae, E. choisyae, E. paeoniae, E. psidii, E. zorniae, Eupelte shoemakeri, Godronia myrtilli, G. raduloides, Sarcinella mirabilis, S. pulchra, Schizothyrium jamaicense, and Trichothallus niger. Finally, one new species name, Diaporthe azadirachte, is introduced to validate an earlier name, and the conservation of Discula with a new type, D. destructiva, is recommended.
Keywords
Diaporthales, Dothideomycetes, dual nomenclature, Eurotiales, Hypocreales, Leotiomycetes, nomenclature, pleomorphic fungi, protected lists of names, taxonomy