Possible house-keeping and other draft proposals to clarify or enhance the naming of fungi within the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN)

Abstract

The 10th International Mycological Congress (IMC10), to be held in August 2014, will be the last before the 19th International Botanical Congress (IBC) scheduled for July 2017 at which changes in the ICN will be adopted. IMC10 will therefore be the last opportunity for mycologists as a whole to debate and propose clarifications and other changes they would like to see made in the ICN which was adopted in Melbourne in 2011. In order to stimulate debate, draft proposals are presented here on ten topics: terminology of the new lists; protection against unlisted names; priority for sexual morph typified names; removal of exemptions for lichen-forming fungi; extension of sanctioning to additional works; extending conservation to additional ranks; names with the same epithet; registration of typifications subsequent to valid publication; sequenced epitypes; and generic homonyms in other kingdoms. It is anticipated that the draft proposals presented here will be abandoned, refined, or supplemented by debates at the Genera and Genomes symposium in Amsterdam in April 2014 and during IMC10, and also by other comments received from individual mycologists or other bodies. Formal proposals will then be prepared for presentation and decision at the IBC in 2017.

Accepted Trichoderma names in the year 2015

“…Subsequent to the Melbourne Congress, it emerged that in order to promote stability of names it was essential that listed names should be protected against unlisted names and not just listed names against which they were protected (Hawksworth 2014). This view was overwhelmingly supported by the 10 th International Mycological Congress (IMC10) in Bangkok in 2014, which agreed that the lists be referred to as “Lists of Protected Names” (Redhead et al 2014).…”

Recommendations on generic names competing for use in Leotiomycetes (Ascomycota)

“…In some cases the recommended generic name does not have priority or is based on an asexual type species and thus needs approval according to Art. 57.2 of the ICN and further explained by Hawksworth (2014). The background to the changes in the Code and the need for papers such as this one resulting in lists of protected names (McNeill et al 2012, Art.…”

Report of the Special Subcommittee on Governance of the Code with Respect to Fungi

“…While this issue has been resolved as far as changes to Art. 59 are concerned, there remain implementation issues, such as around different morph-names with the same epithet (Hawksworth & al., 2013;Hawksworth, 2014) and the lists from working groups under Art. 14.13; the latter Article (along with Art.…”