Minimizing the chaos following the loss of Article 59: Suggestions for a discussion

We assert that the suppression at the 2011 Melbourne Botanical Congress of the dual nomenclature for pleomorphic fungi was premature since most fungal genera still remain inadequately typified and need molecularly based revisions. The new system turns a rule-determined nomenclature into a system of names to be decided by committees. The new system cannot be implemented until experts publish well-documented rationales about the generic names to be accepted or suppressed among alternative morphs and the responsible committees act officially. Prioritization vs. suppression is not the same as conservation vs. rejection. If a teleomorphic generic name is suppressed, it still remains valid and legitimate and can still serve as a basis for names of higher-rank taxa. In most cases the teleomorph genus name should be prioritized unless convincing arguments favor preference of the anamorph name. Paraphyletic genera must be recognized. Unless the phylogenetic positions of all type species for possible morphs are confirmed, no prioritization can be fixed. When a binomial in a prioritized genus has a younger epithet than the corresponding name in the suppressed genus, only priority of extant names in the prioritized genus should count.