The Amsterdam Declaration on Fungal Nomenclature

Abstract

The Amsterdam Declaration on Fungal Nomenclature was agreed at an international symposium convened in Amsterdam on 19–20 April 2011 under the auspices of the International Commission on the Taxonomy of Fungi (ICTF). The purpose of the symposium was to address the issue of whether or how the current system of naming pleomorphic fungi should be maintained or changed now that molecular data are routinely available. The issue is urgent as mycologists currently follow different practices, and no consensus was achieved by a Special Committee appointed in 2005 by the International Botanical Congress to advise on the problem. The Declaration recognizes the need for an orderly transitition to a single-name nomenclatural system for all fungi, and to provide mechanisms to protect names that otherwise then become endangered. That is, meaning that priority should be given to the first described name, except where that is a younger name in general use when the first author to select a name of a pleomorphic monophyletic genus is to be followed, and suggests controversial cases are referred to a body, such as the ICTF, which will report to the Committee for Fungi. If appropriate, the ICTF could be mandated to promote the implementation of the Declaration. In addition, but not forming part of the Declaration, are reports of discussions held during the symposium on the governance of the nomenclature of fungi, and the naming of fungi known only from an environmental nucleic acid sequence in particular. Possible amendments to the Draft BioCode (2011) to allow for the needs of mycologists are suggested for further consideration, and a possible example of how a fungus only known from the environment might be described is presented.

Sexual reproduction and mating-type–mediated strain development in the penicillin-producing fungus Penicillium chrysogenum

“…Further work is now required to determine the extent of sexual fertility within natural populations of P. chrysogenum. The previously undescribed sexual state of P. chrysogenum was morphologically similar to that of known sexual Eupenicillium species, but no new teleomorph name is proposed in agreement with recent taxonomic revisions (18,40).…”

Species reassignment of Geotrichum bryndzae, Geotrichum phurueaensis, Geotrichum silvicola and Geotrichum vulgare based on phylogenetic analyses and mating compatibility

“…2c); 3, asci, sterile (Fig. 2d) An important matter that has to be taken into account in the near future is the Amsterdam declaration on fungal nomenclature, which addresses the very important issue of how the current system of naming pleomorphic fungi will change as a result of the availability of DNA sequence data (Hawksworth et al, 2011). This declaration proposes that, in principle, priority should be given to the oldest described name, with some exceptions (Rossman & Seifert, 2011).…”

Which Fungus Originally was Trichophyton mentagrophytes? Historical Review and Illustration by a Clinical Case

“…For species whose teleomorph is still unknown, the genus name ''Trichophyton'' is employed (Table 1). According to the rules proposed by the Amsterdam declaration on Fungal Nomenclature (one fungus = one name) [18], the name T. mentagrophytes should simply disappear on behalf of A. vanbreuseghemii. However, according to the same declaration, ''authors should choose the oldest generic name, irrespective of whether it is typified by a species name with a teleomorphic or an anamorphic type, except where the younger generic name is far better known.''…”