Chapter F of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants as approved by the 11th International Mycological Congress, San Juan, Puerto Rico, July 2018

Abstract

A revised version of Chapter F of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants is presented, incorporating amendments approved by the Fungal Nomenclature Session of the 11th International Mycological Congress held in San Juan, Puerto Rico in July 2018. The process leading to the amendments is outlined. Key changes in the San Juan Chapter F are (1) removal of option to use a colon to indicate the sanctioned status of a name, (2) introduction of correctability for incorrectly cited identifiers of names and typifications, and (3) introduction of option to use name identifiers in place of author citations. Examples have been added to aid the interpretation of new Articles and Recommendations, and Examples have also been added to the existing Art. F.3.7 concerning the protection extended to new combinations based on sanctioned names or basionyms of sanctioned names (which has been re-worded), and to Art. F.3.9 concerning typification of names accepted in the sanctioning works.

Appendix

CHAPTER F

NAMES OF ORGANISMS TREATED AS FUNGI

(SAN JUAN VERSION)

This Chapter brings together the provisions of this Code that deal solely with names of organisms treated as fungi.

Content in this Chapter may be modified by action of the Fungal Nomenclature Session of an International Mycological Congress (IMC) (see Div. III Prov. 8). The current version of this Chapter, the San Juan Chapter F, embodies the decisions accepted by the 11^th IMC in San Juan (Puerto Rico) on 21 July 2018.

Always consult the online version of this Code (http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php) in case of changes resulting from subsequent IMCs. The next IMC will be held in Amsterdam (The Netherlands) in 2022.

The following changes were introduced in the San Juan Chapter F:

Art. F.3.7. The Article was reworded to improve clarity, and two Examples were added.

Art. F.3.9. Two Examples were added.

Rec. F.3A. The option of using a colon to indicate sanctioning was removed. If it is desired to indicate sanctioning, it is recommended that this be done by using the abbreviation “nom. sanct.”.

Art. F.5. Several new provisions were added concerning aspects of the registration of names and nomenclatural acts. Art. F.5.6 allows correctability of incorrectly cited identifiers; Art. F.5.7 specifies that, in order for a designation that may be associated with an existing identifier to become a validly published name, a new identifier must be obtained; and Art. F.5.8 extends correctability to identifiers issued for type designations. Rec. F.5A.1 was enlarged to encourage authors of names to provide electronic versions of their publications to recognized repositories. A footnote was added to Art. F.5.2 noting the practice of assigning new identifiers to names with corrected orthography. Note that because Art. F.5.6 is not date-limited, it is retroactive (Principle VI), and consequently validations of names associated with incorrectly cited identifiers are later isonyms and may be disregarded (Art. 6 Note 2).

Art. F.10. A new Article was added concerning the use of identifiers in place of author citations.

Mycologists should note that the content of this Code outside of Chapter F pertains to all organisms covered by this Code, including fungi, unless expressly limited. This content includes rules about effective publication, valid publication, typification, legitimacy, and priority of names; citation and orthography; and names of hybrids.

Some provisions in the Preamble, Principles, Articles, and Recommendations elsewhere in this Code, such as those listed below, while not restricted to fungi, are of particular relevance to mycologists. The full wording of these and all other relevant provisions of this Code should be consulted in all cases.

Pre. 8. The provisions of this Code apply to all organisms traditionally treated as fungi, whether fossil or non-fossil, including chytrids, oomycetes, and slime moulds (but excluding Microsporidia).

Principle I. This Code applies to names of taxonomic groups treated as fungi, whether or not these groups were originally so treated.

Art. 4 Note 4. In classifying parasites, especially fungi, authors may distinguish within the species special forms (formae speciales) characterized by their adaptation to different hosts, but the nomenclature of special forms is not governed by the provisions of this Code.

Art. 8.4 (see also Art. 8 Ex. 12, Rec. 8B, Art. 40 Note 3, and Art. 40.8). Cultures of fungi are acceptable as types if preserved in a metabolically inactive state, and on or after 1 January 2019 this must be stated in the protologue.

Art. 14.15 and Art. 14 Note 4(c)(2). Before 1 January 1954, decisions on conservation of names made by the Special Committee for Fungi, became effective on 20 July 1950 at the VII International Botanical Congress in Stockholm.

Art. 16.3. Automatically typified suprafamilial names of fungi end as follows: division or phylum in -mycota, subdivision or subphylum in -mycotina, class in -mycetes, and subclass in –mycetidae. Automatically typified names not in accordance with these terminations are to be corrected.

Rec. 38E.1. The hosts should be indicated in descriptions or diagnoses of new taxa of parasitic organisms, especially fungi.

Art. 40.5. The type of a name of a new species or infraspecific taxon of non-fossil microfungi may be an effectively published illustration if there are technical difficulties of specimen preservation or if it is impossible to preserve a specimen that would show the features attributed to the taxon by the author of the name (but see Art. 40 Ex. 6, which treats representations of DNA sequences as falling outside of the definition of illustrations in Art. 6.1 footnote).

Art. 41.8(b) (see also Art. 41 Ex. 26). Failure to cite the place of valid publication of a basionym or replaced synonym, when explained by the backward shift of the starting date for some fungi, is a correctable error.

Art. 45.1 (see also Art. 45 Ex. 6 and 7 and Note 1). If a taxon originally assigned to a group not covered by this Code is treated as belonging to the algae or fungi, any of its names need satisfy only the requirements of the relevant other Code that the author was using for status equivalent to valid publication under this Code. Note especially that names of Microsporidia are not covered by this Code even when Microsporidia are considered as fungi.

SECTION 1

LIMITATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY

ARTICLE F.1

NOMENCLATURAL STARTING-POINT

F.1.1. Valid publication of names for non-fossil fungi (Pre. 8) is treated as beginning at 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species plantarum, ed. 1, treated as having been published on that date; see Art. 13.1). For nomenclatural purposes, names given to lichens apply to their fungal component. Names of Microsporidia are governed by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (see Pre. 8).

Note 1. For fossil fungi, see Art. 13.1(f).

ARTICLE F.2

PROTECTED NAMES

F.2.1. In the interest of nomenclatural stability, for organisms treated as fungi, lists of names proposed for protection may be submitted to the General Committee, which will refer them to the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi (see Div. III Prov. 2.2, 7.9, and 7.10) for examination by subcommittees established by that Committee in consultation with the General Committee and appropriate international bodies. Protected names on these lists, which become part of the Appendices of the Code (see App. IIA, III, and IV) once reviewed and approved by the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi and the General Committee (see Art. 14.15 and Rec. 14A.1), are to be listed with their types and are treated as conserved against any competing listed or unlisted synonyms or homonyms (including sanctioned names), although conservation under Art. 14 overrides this protection. The lists of protected names remain open for revision through the procedures described in this Article (see also Art. F.7.1).

ARTICLE F.3

SANCTIONED NAMES

F.3.1. Names in Uredinales, Ustilaginales, and Gasteromycetes (s. l.) adopted by Persoon (Synopsis methodica fungorum, 1801) and names of other fungi (excluding slime moulds) adopted by Fries (Systema mycologicum, vol. 1–3. 1821–1832, with additional Index, 1832; and Elenchus fungorum, vol. 1–2. 1828), are sanctioned.

F.3.2. Names sanctioned are treated as if conserved against earlier homonyms and competing synonyms. Such names, once sanctioned, remain sanctioned even if elsewhere in the sanctioning works the sanctioning author does not recognize them. The spelling used when the name was sanctioned is treated as conserved, except for changes mandated by Art. 60 and F.9.

Ex. 1. The name Strigula smaragdula Fr. (in Linnaea 5: 550. 1830) was accepted by Fries (Syst. Mycol., Index: 184. 1832) and therefore sanctioned. It is treated as if conserved against the competing earlier synonym Phyllochoris elegans Fée (Essai Crypt. Ecorc: xciv. 1825), which is the basionym of Strigula elegans (Fée) Müll. Arg. (in Linnaea 43: 41. 1880).

Ex. 2. Agaricus ericetorum Pers. (Observ. Mycol. 1: 50. 1796) was accepted by Fries (Syst. Mycol. 1: 165. 1821), but later (Elench. Fung. 1: 22. 1828) regarded by him as a synonym of A. umbelliferus L. (Sp. Pl.: 1175. 1753), nom. sanct., and not included in his Index (p. 18. 1832) as an accepted name. Nevertheless A. ericetorum Pers. is a sanctioned name.

Ex. 3. The spelling used when the name Merulius lacrimans (Wulfen) Schumach. was sanctioned (Fries, Syst. Mycol. 1: 328. 1821) is to be maintained, even though the epithet was spelled ‘lacrymans’ by Schumacher (Enum. Pl. 2: 371. 1803) and the basionym was originally published as Boletus ‘lacrymans’ Wulfen (in Jacquin, Misc. Austriac. 2: 111. 1781).

F.3.3. A sanctioned name is illegitimate if it is a later homonym of another sanctioned name (see also Art. 53).

F.3.4. An earlier homonym of a sanctioned name is not made illegitimate by that sanctioning but is unavailable for use; if not otherwise illegitimate, it may serve as a basionym of another name or combination based on the same type (see also Art. 55.3).

Ex. 4. Patellaria Hoffm. (Descr. Pl. Cl. Crypt. 1: 33, 54, 55. 1789) is an earlier homonym of the sanctioned generic name Patellaria Fr. (Syst. Mycol. 2: 158. 1822). Hoffmann’s name is legitimate but unavailable for use. Lecanidion Endl. (Fl. Poson.: 46. 1830), based on the same type as Patellaria Fr., nom. sanct., is illegitimate under Art. 52.1.

Ex. 5. Antennaria Gaertn. (Fruct. Sem. Pl. 2: 410. 1791), in order to become available for use, required conservation against the later homonym Antennaria Link (in Neues J. Bot. 3(1,2): 16. 1809), nom. sanct. (Fries, Syst. Mycol. 1: xlvii. 1821).

Ex. 6. Agaricus cervinus Schaeff. (Fung. Bavar. Palat. Nasc. 4: 6. 1774) is an earlier homonym of the sanctioned name A. cervinus Hoffm. (Nomencl. Fung. 1: t. 2, fig. 2. 1789), nom. sanct. (Fries, Syst. Mycol. 1: 82. 1821); Schaeffer’s name is unavailable for use, but it is legitimate and may serve as basionym for combinations in other genera. In Pluteus Fr. the combination is cited as P. cervinus (Schaeff.) P. Kumm. and has priority over the heterotypic (taxonomic) synonym P. atricapillus (Batsch) Fayod, based on A. atricapillus Batsch (Elench. Fung.: 77. 1786).

F.3.5. When, for a taxon at a rank from family to genus, inclusive, two or more sanctioned names compete, Art. 11.3 governs the choice of the correct name (see also Art. F.3.7).

F.3.6. When, for a taxon at a rank lower than genus, two or more sanctioned names and/or two or more names with the same final epithet and type as a sanctioned name compete, Art. 11.4 governs the choice of the correct name.

Note 1. The date of sanctioning does not affect the date of valid publication, and therefore priority (Art. 11), of a sanctioned name. In particular, when two or more homonyms are sanctioned only the earliest of them may be used because the later one(s) are illegitimate under Art. F.3.3.

Ex. 7. Fries (Syst. Mycol. 1: 41. 1821) accepted and thus sanctioned Agaricus flavovirens Pers. (in Hoffmann, Abbild. Schwämme 3: t. 24. 1793) and treated A. equestris L. (Sp. Pl.: 1173. 1753) as a synonym. He later (Elench. Fung. 1: 6. 1828) accepted A. equestris, stating “Nomen prius et aptius certe restituendum [The prior and more apt name is certainly to be restored]”. Both names are sanctioned, but, when they are treated as synonyms, A. equestris L., nom. sanct. is to be used because it has priority.

F.3.7. A name that neither is sanctioned nor has the same type and final epithet as a sanctioned name at the same rank may not be used for a taxon that includes the type of a sanctioned name at that rank unless the final epithet of the sanctioned name is not available for the required combination (see Art. 11.4(c)).

Ex. 8. The name Agaricus involutus Batsch (Elench. Fung.: 39. 1786) was sanctioned by Fries (Syst. Mycol. 1: 271. 1821) and therefore, when treated in Paxillus Fr. with the earlier but non-sanctioned name A. contiguus Bull. (Herb. Fr. 5: t. 240. 1785) as a synonym, the correct name is P. involutus (Batsch) Fr.

Ex. 9. The name Polyporus brumalis (Pers.) Fr. (Observ. Mycol. 2: 255. 1818), nom. sanct. (Fries, Syst. Mycol. 1: 348. 1821), based on Boletus brumalis Pers. (in Neues Mag. Bot. 1: 107. 1794), was treated by Zmitrovich & Kovalenko (in Int. J. Med. Mushr. 18: 23–38, suppl. 2: [2]. 2015) as synonymous with B. hypocrateriformis Schrank (Baier. Fl. 2: 621. 1789) and placed in Lentinus Fr., nom. sanct., in which the correct name is L. brumalis (Pers.) Zmitr. (in Int. J. Med. Mushr. 12: 88. 2010).

F.3.8. Conservation (Art. 14), protection (Art. F.2), and explicit rejection (Art. 56 and F.7) override sanctioning.

F.3.9. The type of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon adopted in one of the works specified in Art. F.3.1, and thereby sanctioned, may be selected from among the elements associated with the name in the protologue and/or the sanctioning treatment.

Note 2. For names falling under Art. F.3.9, elements from the context of the protologue are original material and those from the context of the sanctioning work are considered as equivalent to original material.

Ex. 10. When Stadler & al. (in IMA Fungus 5: 61. 2014) designated the lectotype of Clavaria hypoxylon L. (Sp. Pl.: 1182. 1753), sanctioned by Fries (Syst. Mycol. 2: 327. 1823) as Sphaeria hypoxylon (L.) Pers. (Observ. Mycol. 1: 20. 1796), they selected a specimen in K distributed by Fries (Scler. Suec. No. 181) and cited by him in the sanctioning treatment rather than any of the elements associated with the protologue.

Ex. 11. In the absence of any specimens or illustrations from the context of the protologue that are original material, Peterson (in Amer. J. Bot. 63: 313. 1976) designated a specimen in L as the neotype of Clavaria formosa Pers. (Comm. Fung. Clav.: 41. 1797), nom. sanct. However, when sanctioning C. formosa, Fries (Syst. Mycol. 1: 466. 1821) cited several illustrations, which are therefore considered as equivalent to original material. Peterson’s neotypification was not therefore designated in conformity with Art. 9.13 and is not to be followed (Art. 9.19). Instead, Franchi & Marchetti (in Riv. Micol. 59: 323. 2017) designated as the lectotype of C. formosa one of the illustrations (Persoon, Icon. Desc. Fung. Min. Cognit. 1: t. III, fig. 6. 1798) that was cited by Fries (l.c., as “f. 5”).

F.3.10. When a sanctioning author accepted an earlier name but did not include, even implicitly, any element associated with its protologue, or when the protologue did not include the subsequently designated type of the sanctioned name, the sanctioning author is considered to have created a later homonym, treated as if conserved (see also Art. 48).

Note 3. For typification of sanctioned generic names, see Art. 10.2. Note that automatic typification under Art. 7.5 does not apply to sanctioned names. For legitimacy of sanctioned names (or names based on them), see also Art. 6.4, 52.1, 53.1, and 55.3.

Recommendation F.3A

F.3A.1. When it is considered useful to indicate the nomenclatural status of a sanctioned name (Art. F.3.1), the abbreviation “nom. sanct.” (nomen sanctionatum) should be added in a formal citation; the place of sanctioning should also be added in full nomenclatural citations.¹

Ex. 1. Boletus piperatus Bull. (Herb. France: t. 451, fig. 2. 1790) was adopted in Fries (Syst. Mycol. 1: 388. 1821) and was thereby sanctioned. Depending on the level of nomenclatural information being presented, it should be cited as B. piperatus Bull., nom. sanct.; or B. piperatus Bull. 1790, nom. sanct.; or B. piperatus Bull., Herb. France: t. 451, fig. 2. 1790, nom. sanct.; or B. piperatus Bull., Herb. France: t. 451, fig. 2. 1790, nom. sanct. (Fries, Syst. Mycol. 1: 388. 1821).

Ex. 2. Agaricus compactus [unranked] sarcocephalus (Fr.) Fr. was sanctioned when adopted by Fries (Syst. Mycol. 1: 290. 1821). That status should be indicated by citing it as A. compactus [unranked] sarcocephalus (Fr.) Fr., nom. sanct. The abbreviation “nom. sanct.” should not be added when citing its basionym A. sarcocephalus Fr. (Observ. Mycol. 1: 51. 1815) or when citing subsequent combinations such as Psathyrella sarcocephala (Fr.) Singer (in Lilloa 22: 468. 1949).

SECTION 2

VALID PUBLICATION AND TYPIFICATION OF NAMES

ARTICLE F.4

MISPLACED RANK-DENOTING TERMS

F.4.1. A name is not validly published if it is given to a taxon of which the rank is at the same time, contrary to Art. 5, denoted by a misplaced term (Art. 37.6), but an exception is made for names of the subdivisions of genera termed tribes (tribus) in Fries’s Systema mycologicum, which are treated as validly published names of unranked subdivisions of genera.

Ex. 1. Agaricus “tribus” [unranked] Pholiota Fr. (Syst. Mycol. 1: 240. 1821), sanctioned in the same work, is the validly published basionym of the generic name Pholiota (Fr.) P. Kumm. (Führer Pilzk.: 22. 1871) (see Art. 41 Ex. 9).

ARTICLE F.5

REGISTRATION OF NAMES AND NOMENCLATURAL ACTS

F.5.1. In order to be validly published, nomenclatural novelties (Art. 6 Note 4) applied to organisms treated as fungi under this Code (Pre. 8; including fossil fungi and lichen-forming fungi) and published on or after 1 January 2013 must, in the protologue, include citation of the identifier issued for the name by a recognized repository (Art. F.5.3).

Ex. 1. The protologue of Albugo arenosa Mirzaee & Thines (in Mycol. Prog. 12: 50. 2013) complies with Art. F.5.1 because it includes citation of “MB 564515”, an identifier issued by MycoBank, one of three recognized repositories. The decision by the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi to appoint (Art. F.5.3) Fungal Names, Index Fungorum, and MycoBank as repositories (Redhead & Norvell in Taxon 62: 173–174. 2013) was ratified (Art. F.5.3) by the 10th International Mycological Congress (May in Taxon 66: 484. 2017).

Ex. 2. The designation “Austropleospora archidendri” (Ariyawansa & al. in Fungal Diversity 75: 64. 2015) is not a validly published new combination based on Paraconiothyrium archidendri Verkley & al. (in Persoonia 32: 37. 2014) because it was published without citing an identifier issued by a recognized repository, even though the recognized repository Index Fungorum had previously issued the identifier “IF 551419” for the intended new combination.

Ex. 3. The designation “Priceomyces fermenticarens” (Gouliamova & al. in Persoonia 36: 429. 2016), intended as a new combination, was published with the identifier “MB 310255”, which refers to the identifier “IF 310255” that had been assigned to the intended basionym, Candida fermenticarens Van der Walt & P. B. Baker (in Bothalia 12: 561. 1978) by Index Fungorum prior to registration becoming mandatory. The recognized repository MycoBank assigned the identifier “MB 818676” for the intended new combination after its publication, but because no identifier was issued prior to its publication the intended combination was not validly published. Priceomyces fermenticarens (Van der Walt & P. B. Baker) Gouliam. & al. (in Persoonia 39: 289. 2017) was subsequently validly published with citation of the identifier “MB 818692”, newly issued by MycoBank.

F.5.2. For an identifier to be issued by a recognized repository as required by Art. F.5.1, the minimum elements of information that must be accessioned by author(s) of scientific names are the proposed name itself and those elements required for valid publication under Art. 38.1(a) and 39.2 (validating description or diagnosis) and Art. 40.1 and 40.7 (type) or Art. 41.5 (reference to the basionym or replaced synonym). When the accessioned and subsequently published information for a name with a given identifier differ, the published information is considered definitive.²

Note 1. Issuance of an identifier by a recognized repository presumes subsequent fulfilment of the requirements for valid publication of the name (Art. 32–45, F.5.1, and F.5.2) but does not in itself constitute or guarantee valid publication.

Note 2. The words “name” and “names” are used in Art. F.5.1 and F.5.2 for names that may not yet be validly published, in which case the definition in Art. 6.3 does not apply.

F.5.3. The Nomenclature Committee for Fungi (see Div. III Prov. 7) has the power to (a) appoint one or more localized or decentralized, open and accessible electronic repositories to accession the information required by Art. F.5.2 and F.5.5 and issue the identifiers required by Art. F.5.1 and F.5.4; (b) cancel such appointment at its discretion; and (c) set aside the requirements of Art. F.5.1, F.5.2, F.5.4, and F.5.5, should the repository mechanism, or essential parts thereof, cease to function. Decisions made by this Committee under these powers are subject to ratification by a subsequent International Mycological Congress.

F.5.4. For purposes of priority (Art. 9.19, 9.20, and 10.5), designation of a type, on or after 1 January 2019, of the name of an organism treated as a fungus under this Code (Pre. 8), is achieved only if an identifier issued for the type designation by a recognized repository (Art. F.5.3) is cited.

Note 3. Art. F.5.4 applies only to the designation of lectotypes (and their equivalents under Art. 10), neotypes, and epitypes; it does not apply to the designation of a holotype when publishing the name of a new taxon, for which see Art. F.5.2.

F.5.5. For an identifier to be issued by a recognized repository as required by Art. F.5.4, the minimum elements of information that must be accessioned by author(s) of type designations are the name being typified, the author designating the type, and those elements required by Art. 9.21, 9.22, and 9.23.

Note 4. Issuance of an identifier by a recognized repository presumes subsequent fulfilment of the requirements for effective type designation (Art. 7.8–7.11 and F.5.4) but does not in itself constitute or guarantee a type designation.

F.5.6. When the identifier issued for a name by a recognized repository is cited incorrectly in the protologue, this is treated as a correctable error not preventing valid publication of the name, provided that the identifier was issued prior to the protologue.

Ex. 4. The identifier “MB 564220” was issued by MycoBank for Cortinarius peristeris Soop (in Bresadoliana 1: 22. 2013) prior to publication of the name. Even though the identifier was incorrectly cited as “MB 564” in the protologue, the name is validly published.

F.5.7. An identifier remains associated with the name or designation for which it was issued. If, when published, a designation for which an identifier has been issued does not meet other requirements for valid publication, in order for that designation to become a validly published name, a new identifier must be obtained.

Ex. 5. The designation “Nigelia” (Luangsa-ard & al. in Mycol. Progr. 16: 378. 2017) was published without citation of an identifier. MycoBank assigned the identifier “MB 823565” for this designation after publication. The designation was later validated as Nigelia Luangsa-ard & al. (in Index Fungorum 345: 1. 2017) with citation of the identifier “IF 553229” newly issued by Index Fungorum.

F.5.8. When the identifier issued for a type designation by a recognized repository is cited incorrectly in the typifying publication, this is treated as a correctable error not preventing designation of the type, provided that the identifier was issued prior to the typifying publication.

Recommendation F.5A

F.5A.1. Authors of names of organisms treated as fungi are encouraged to (a) deposit the required elements of information for any nomenclatural novelty in a recognized repository as soon as possible after a work is accepted for publication, so as to obtain identifiers for each nomenclatural novelty; (b) inform the recognized repository that issued the identifier of the complete bibliographic details upon publication of the name, including volume and part number, page number, date of publication, and (for books) the publisher and place of publication; and (c) upon publication of a name, supply an electronic version of the publication to the recognized repository that issued the identifier associated with the name.

F.5A.2. In addition to meeting the requirements for effective publication of choices of name (Art. 11.5 and 53.5), orthography (Art. 61.3), or gender (Art. 62.3), those publishing such choices for names of organisms treated as fungi are encouraged to record the choice in a recognized repository (Art. F.5.3) and cite the identifier in the place of publication.

SECTION 3

REJECTION OF NAMES

ARTICLE F.6

F.6.1. The name of a taxon treated as a fungus published on or after 1 January 2019 is illegitimate if it is a later homonym of a prokaryotic or protozoan name (see also Art. 54 and Rec. 54A).

ARTICLE F.7

F.7.1. In the interest of nomenclatural stability, for organisms treated as fungi, lists of names proposed for rejection may be submitted to the General Committee, which will refer them to the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi (see Div. III Prov. 2.2, 7.9, and 7.10) for examination by subcommittees established by that Committee in consultation with the General Committee and appropriate international bodies. Names on these lists, which become part of the Appendices of the Code once reviewed and approved by the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi and the General Committee (see Art. 56.3 and Rec. 56A.1), are to be treated as rejected under Art. 56.1, except that they may become eligible for use by conservation under Art. 14 (see also Art. F.2.1).

SECTION 4

NAMES OF FUNGI WITH A PLEOMORPHIC LIFE CYCLE

ARTICLE F.8

F.8.1. A name published prior to 1 January 2013 for a taxon of non-lichen-forming Ascomycota and Basidiomycota, with the intent or implied intent of applying to or being typified by one particular morph (e.g. anamorph or teleomorph; see Note 2), may be legitimate even if it otherwise would be illegitimate under Art. 52 on account of the protologue including a type (as defined in Art. 52.2) referable to a different morph. If the name is otherwise legitimate, it competes for priority (Art. 11.3 and 11.4).

Ex. 1. Penicillium brefeldianum B. O. Dodge (in Mycologia 25: 92. 1933) was described and based on a type with both the anamorph and teleomorph (and therefore necessarily typified by the teleomorph element alone under editions of the Code prior to the Melbourne Code of 2012). The combination Eupenicillium brefeldianum (B. O. Dodge) Stolk & D. B. Scott (in Persoonia 4: 400. 1967) for the teleomorph is legitimate. Penicillium dodgei Pitt (Gen. Penicillium: 117. 1980), typified by the anamorph in a dried culture “derived from Dodge’s type”, did not include the teleomorphic type of P. brefeldianum and therefore it too is legitimate. However, when considered a species of Penicillium, the correct name for all its states is P. brefeldianum.

Note 1. Except as provided in Art. F.8.1, names of fungi with mitotic asexual morphs (anamorphs) as well as a meiotic sexual morph (teleomorph) must conform to the same provisions of this Code as all other fungi.

Note 2. Editions of the Code prior to the Melbourne Code of 2012 provided for separate names for mitotic asexual morphs (anamorphs) of certain pleomorphic fungi and required that the name applicable to the whole fungus be typified by a meiotic sexual morph (teleomorph). Under the current Code, however, all legitimate fungal names are treated equally for the purposes of establishing priority, regardless of the life-history stage of the type (see also Art. F.2.1).

Ex. 2. Mycosphaerella aleuritidis (Miyake) S. H. Ou (in Sinensia 11: 183. 1940), when published as a new combination, was accompanied by a Latin diagnosis of the newly discovered teleomorph corresponding to the anamorph on which the basionym Cercospora aleuritidis Miyake (in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 26: 66. 1912) was typified. Under editions of the Code prior to the Melbourne Code of 2012, M. aleuritidis was considered to be the name of a new species with a teleomorph type, dating from 1940, and with authorship attributed solely to Ou. Under the current Code, the name is cited as originally published, M. aleuritidis (Miyake) S. H. Ou, and is typified by the type of the basionym.

Ex. 3. In the protologue of the teleomorph-typified Venturia acerina Plakidas ex M. E. Barr (in Canad. J. Bot. 46: 814. 1968) the anamorph-typified Cladosporium humile Davis (in Trans. Wisconsin Acad. Sci. 19: 702. 1919) was included as a synonym. Because it was published prior to 1 January 2013, the name V. acerina is not illegitimate, but C. humile is the earliest legitimate name at the rank of species.

Note 3. Names proposed simultaneously for separate morphs (e.g. anamorph and teleomorph) of a taxon of non-lichen-forming Ascomycota and Basidiomycota are necessarily heterotypic and are not therefore alternative names as defined by Art. 36.3.

Ex. 4. Hypocrea dorotheae Samuels & Dodd and Trichoderma dorotheae Samuels & Dodd were simultaneously validly published (in Stud. Mycol. 56: 112. 2006) for what the authors considered a single species with Samuels & Dodd 8657 (PDD 83839) as the holotype. Because these names were published before 1 January 2013 (see Art. F.8.1 and Note 2), and because the authors explicitly indicated that the name T. dorotheae was typified by the anamorphic element of PDD 83839, both names are validly published and legitimate. They are not alternative names as defined in Art. 36.3.

SECTION 5

ORTHOGRAPHY OF NAMES

ARTICLE F.9

F.9.1. Epithets of fungal names derived from the generic name of an associated organism are to be spelled in accordance with the accepted spelling of the name of that organism; other spellings are regarded as orthographical variants to be corrected (see Art. 61).

Ex. 1. Phyllachora ‘anonicola’ Chardón (in Mycologia 32: 190. 1940) is to be corrected to P. annonicola in accordance with the accepted spelling of Annona L.; Meliola ‘albizziae’ Hansf. & Deighton (in Mycol. Pap. 23: 26. 1948) is to be corrected to M. albiziae in accordance with the accepted spelling of Albizia Durazz.

Ex. 2. Dimeromyces ‘corynitis’ Thaxter (in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 48: 157. 1912) was stated to occur “On the elytra of Corynites ruficollis Fabr.”, but the name of the host, a species of beetle, is correctly spelled Corynetes ruficollis. The fungal name is therefore to be spelled D. corynetis.

SECTION 6

AUTHOR CITATIONS

ARTICLE F.10

F.10.1. For names of organisms treated as fungi, the identifier issued for the name by a recognized repository (Art. F.5.1) may be used subsequent to the protologue in place of an author citation for the name but not to replace the name itself (see also Art. 22.1 and 26.1).

Recommendation F.10A

F.10A.1. An identifier used in place of an author citation as permitted by Art. F.10.1 should be presented with the symbol # preceding the numerical part of the identifier, and the resulting string should be enclosed in square brackets. In electronic publications, this string should be provided with a direct and stable link to the corresponding record in one of the recognized repositories.

Ex. 1. Astrothelium meristosporoides [#816706]. The direct and stable link to a record in a recognized repository would be either http://www.mycobank.org/MB/816706 or http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/NamesRecord.asp?RecordID=816706.