Table 1 Results of responses to questionnaire included in all delegates packs at IMC10 ((percentage “Yes” votes over 60% of votes cast indicated in red bold type).
From: Fungal Nomenclature at IMC10: Report of the Nomenclature Sessions
Topic | Question (Explanatory comments in […] brackets) | Number of votes | Yes | No | Percentage “Yes” votes / Number of votes cast | Percentage “Yes” / Total number of Questionnaires returned |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
REGISTRATION 1 | Fungal Names (hosted by the Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing, CHina) | 86 | 56 | 30 | 65.1% | 47.8% |
2 | Index Fungorum (hosted by Landcare NZ and Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, UK) | 108 | 86 | 22 | 79.6% | 73.5% |
3 | MycoBank (owned by IMA, hosted by the CBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands) | 113 | 113 | 0 | 100.0% | 95.7% |
4 | Would you favourably view [making the registration database the only place for valid publication]? | 96 | 58 | 38 | 60.4% | 49.7% |
PROTECTED NAMES | ||||||
5 | Do you favour the creation of lists of such protected names [i.e. ones protected against listed and unlisted names]? | 106 | 94 | 12 | 88.6% | 80.3% |
6 | Do you favour the creation of a list of suppressed fungal names? | 101 | 49 | 52 | 48.5% | 41.8% |
7 | The new lists should be referred to as “protected” (names to be used) and “suppressed” (names not be used) | 95 | 84 | 11 | 88.4% | 71.7% |
8 | The current list of “sanctioned” publications (i.e. works in which the names used are protected from any competing names) should be extended (i.e. not restricted to selected works of Fries and Persoon) | 83 | 43 | 40 | 51.8% | 36.8% |
9 | The term “sanctioned” should be replaced by “protected” and the accepted names in the former sanctioning works should be incorporated into the protected lists. | 80 | 51 | 29 | 63.8% | 43.5% |
10 | Provided that the term “sanctioned” is replaced by “protected”, the use of the “:” indicating the sanctioned status of a name should be discontinued | 71 | 51 | 20 | 71.8% | 43.5% |
FORGOTTEN NAMES | ||||||
11 | In principle, names published before a set date (e.g. 1900) and not included in the appointed repositories of names should no longer be treated as validly published | 101 | 43 | 58 | 42.5% | 36.7% |
12 | In principle, names not used (except in lists of synonymy or compilations of literature records but unrecognized) for 60 years are not allowed to displace currently accepted and used names for the same taxon | 102 | 48 | 54 | 46.6% | 41.0% |
PLEOMORPHIC FUNGI | ||||||
13 | In principle, names typified by a sexual, or by an asexual morph should be treated equally nomenclaturally when determining which name should be adopted | 101 | 94 | 7 | 93.0% | 80.3% |
14 | In principle, if prior to 2013, in naming a newly discovered morph of a species, an author used the same species epithet as the adopted earlier species name, the later name should be treated as a new combination (if it does not violate other rules) and not a new species name (and the author citation corrected accordingly) | 84 | 73 | 11 | 86.9% | 62.3% |
LICHENIZED FUNGI | ||||||
15 | Exemptions for lichen-forming fungi preventing their names being included in lists of protected and suppressed names should be removed, so that all fungal names are treated equally regardless of their biology | 85 | 76 | 9 | 89.4% | 64.9% |
TYPIFICATION | ||||||
16 | After 31 December 2018, later acts of typification (i.e. epi-, lecto-, and neo-typifications) must be recorded in one of the approved repositories in order to be accepted | 105 | 100 | 5 | 95.2% | 85.7% |
17 | Permit sequenced epitypes to be designated to fix the application of species names without first having to establish DNA is not recoverable from the type they represent | 92 | 62 | 30 | 67.3% | 52.9% |
18 | Subject to development of minimum standards, permit the naming of fungi known only as environmental sequences (i.e. with no specimens or cultures) | 102 | 45 | 57 | 44.0% | 38.4% |
DIAGNOSES | ||||||
19 | Require a statement of the features that distinguish a new taxon from those already known (i.e. a diagnosis) for valid publication (with or without a full description) | 106 | 90 | 16 | 84.9% | 76.9% |
GOVERNANCE | ||||||
20 | In general decisions peculiar to fungal nomenclature should be voted at International | |||||
Mycological and not International Botanical Congresses | 111 | 104 | 7 | 93.6% | 88.8% | |
21 | The Nomenclature Committee for Fungi (NCF) members should be appointed by International Mycological and not International Botanical Congresses | 109 | 106 | 3 | 97.2% | 90.5% |
Total number of questionnaires returned with at least one question answered | 117 |