No abstract

The taxonomy of Monascus van Tieghem (Ascomycotina) is revised as a result of an investigation of cultural and microscopic characters of type and numerous other isolates. Three species are recognized: M. pilosus K. Sato ex D. Hawksw. & Pitt sp. nov.: M, purpureus Went; M. ruber van Tieghem. Keys to the species, comprehensive descriptions and lists of material studied are presented. These fungi are of special interest because of their use in the production of a range of oriental fermented foods.

Generic concepts in the Testudinaceae (Ascomycotina, Loculoascomycetes) are reviewed with particular emphasis on the sculpturing of the ascospores which has been examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) for the first time. A key to the nine genera accepted in the family is provided of which two are described as new: Ulospora for U. bilgramii comb.nov. (= Zopfia bilgramii D. Hawksw. et al.), the ascospores of which have three to six deep fissures in each cell, and Zopfiofoveola for Z. punctata comb.nov. (= Zopfia punctata D. Hawksw. & C. Booth), with distinctly and regularly foveolate ascospores. One further new combination is made: Rechingeriella boudieri comb.nov. (= Zopfia boudieri Arnaud). The positions of three additional genera referred to the family by earlier authors but which are excluded from it here are also briefly discussed.

No abstract

HAWKSWORTH, D. L., 1992. The need for a more effective biological nomenclature for the 21st century. The procedures of biological nomenclature are now under immense pressure to change. Users are frustrated by the instability of names and lack of consensus, and increasingly undertake work previously the province of taxonomists; data are presented to show they tend to ignore unwelcome changes. Taxonomists themselves are deflected from both systematic and phylogenetic investigations, and documenting the world's biodiversity, by nomenclatural matters. A survey of 60 U.K. botanical taxonomists revealed that about half spent 10–75% of their research time on nomenclatural matters; extrapolated to the U.K. as a whole, botanical nomenclature could occupy up to 52 full‐time posts at a cost of £ 1.3 million. Further, an analysis of 15 monographs of fungal genera showed that overall 85% of the names investigated were not accepted. The major problems to confront relate to concepts of priority, effective and valid publication, illegitimacy, types, ambiregnal organisms and the decision‐making bodies. While most of these issues have been overcome by bacteriologists, only now are those concerned with botanical and zoological nomenclature starting to tackle them in earnest. A more effective biological nomenclature could be produced by extending the concept of lists of nomenclaturally protected names. This would resolve questions of effective and valid publication, priority, and application. Such lists would primarily assist taxonomists by dealing with much of the nomenclatural ‘noise’ of the past. Registration procedures are needed to complement such lists for names introduced in the future. The need for standard names and classifications fixed for limited periods is increasingly being met by specialist user groups and also concerns some taxonomists, but is best handled outside formal systems by appropriate specialist bodies. Increased harmonization of the Codes is possible when facing common problems and essential to resolve the difficulties posed by ambiregnal organisms. The image of taxonomy is adversely affected by unsatisfactory nomenclatural systems. Taxonomists should be responsible and refrain from changing names only for nomenclatural reasons while these matters are in discussion. Users and taxonomists need to work with nomenclaturalists to improve the effectiveness of biological nomenclature, if they are to ensure that it will fulfil both their requirements in the 21st century. The prospects for systematics are bleak if it fails to consummate the dual responsibilities of scientific endeavour and user requirements