Fungal nomenclature 3.

A critical response to the 'Amsterdam Declaration'

Numerous taxonomists and monographers of fungi are objecting an enforced unitary nomenclature for ascomycetes and basidiomycetes. Proposals 297 and subsequent ones by Redhead et al. (2010) and the “Amsterdam Declaration” (AD) demand more or less drastic and not necessarily efficient changes into this direction.

Three groups of arguments in the AD are refuted: 1. The identification of organisms exclusively based on gene sequences is prone to errors and only a minority of the named fungi has been thoroughly studied so far with molecular methods. 2. There is no need for a mycological Code separate from the botanical one. Where taxonomy demands, special rules for Fungi have already been defined. The registration of taxonomic novelties required for valid publication is supported, but without MycoBank being entitled to make taxonomic statements. 3. Deletion of Article 59 is not possible without chaotic consequences. The mechanism of teleotypification alone does not lead to phylogenetically supported genera. Even after introducing a 'one fungus – one name' rule, mycologists will need to understand the so far prevailing system of dual nomenclature when screening the taxonomic literature.

Objections to the recommendations of the AD include: A selection of generic names among either teleomorph-typified or anamorph-typified genera according to priority contravenes the time-honored rule of precedence of teleomorph-typified names and would make many crucial teleomorph genera unavailable. – A rule that mycologists, who first choose the generic name to be adopted, would have to be followed and this choice has to be registered will be a serious source of conflicts among mycologists. – More weight will be given to the ICTF, an organization dealing mainly with economically important fungi. We maintain that questions of fungal nomenclature must continue to be handled by the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi (NCF)