Skip to main content

Advertisement

We're creating a new version of this page. See preview

  • Article
  • Open Access

Considerations and consequences of allowing DNA sequence data as types of fungal taxa

  • 119Email author,
  • 119,
  • 219,
  • 319,
  • 119,
  • 419,
  • 519,
  • 619,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • ,
  • and
  • 119
IMA Fungus20189:901167

https://doi.org/10.5598/imafungus.2018.09.01.10

  • Received: 14 May 2018
  • Accepted: 21 May 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Nomenclatural type definitions are one of the most important concepts in biological nomenclature. Being physical objects that can be re-studied by other researchers, types permanently link taxonomy (an artificial agreement to classify biological diversity) with nomenclature (an artificial agreement to name biological diversity). Two proposals to amend the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN), allowing DNA sequences alone (of any region and extent) to serve as types of taxon names for voucherless fungi (mainly putative taxa from environmental DNA sequences), have been submitted to be voted on at the 11th International Mycological Congress (Puerto Rico, July 2018). We consider various genetic processes affecting the distribution of alleles among taxa and find that alleles may not consistently and uniquely represent the species within which they are contained. Should the proposals be accepted, the meaning of nomenclatural types would change in a fundamental way from physical objects as sources of data to the data themselves. Such changes are conducive to irreproducible science, the potential typification on artefactual data, and massive creation of names with low information content, ultimately causing nomenclatural instability and unnecessary work for future researchers that would stall future explorations of fungal diversity. We conclude that the acceptance of DNA sequences alone as types of names of taxa, under the terms used in the current proposals, is unnecessary and would not solve the problem of naming putative taxa known only from DNA sequences in a scientifically defensible way. As an alternative, we highlight the use of formulas for naming putative taxa (candidate taxa) that do not require any modification of the ICN.

Keywords

  • IMC11
  • nomenclature
  • speciation
  • taxonomy
  • typification
  • voucherless fungi

Introduction

Hawksworth et al. (2016) recently submitted a set of proposals to modify the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN), aimed at allowing DNA sequences without vouchered specimens to serve as types for fungal taxon names. These proposals were first rejected by the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi (see Turland & Wiersema 2017) and subsequently by the XIX International Botanical Congress (IBC) in Shenzhen, China, in 2017. At the same time, a Special-purpose Committee on DNA sequences as types was proposed to explore and carefully discuss this issue, paving the way for further debate during the next IBC in Rio de Janeiro in 2023 (Turland et al. 2017).

However, apparently because of a perceived urgency in the establishment of a system for naming putative new taxa known only from DNA sequences, the same proposals were recently re-published (Hawksworth et al. 2018) with the intent that they be discussed and voted on at the forthcoming 11th International Mycological Congress (IMC11) in Puerto Rico in July 2018. The proposals aim at allowing the formal naming of fungal taxa only known by DNA sequences (the “dark matter fungi” of Grossart et al. 2016), by authorizing the DNA sequence itself to be the type of a taxon name in the absence of a specimen.

The ICN attempts to create “the provision of a stable method of naming taxonomic groups, avoiding and rejecting the use of names that may cause error and ambiguity or throw science into confusion” (Preamble 1). This provision relies on the use of the nomenclatural type, “the face — the desiccated, flattened face to be sure, but still the face — that is attached to the name of a species” (Daston 2004).

In our opinion, the fungal-specific amendments proposed to the ICN by Hawksworth et al. (2018) should be rejected on the grounds that they would have major negative implications for fungal nomenclature and systematics, or more specifically, violate Preamble 1, promote irreproducible science, and fundamentally change the meaning of the type concept compared to how it has been applied during the last century. An informed debate is needed to avoid any unwanted effects of a rushed decision.

The Proposals

The proposals of Hawksworth et al. (2018) intend to insert a single article, Art. F.4.2, through proposal (F-005), followed by three recommendations, Rec. F.4A.1-3, through proposal (F-006). As only Art. F.4.2 would be mandatory, it is crucial to evaluate proposal (F-005) in particular detail: “(F-005) Insert a new paragraph after Art. F.4.1 as follows: F.4.2. In fungi, when DNA sequence data corresponding to a new taxon have been detected, but no physical specimen has been found to serve as the type of the name of the new taxon (Art. 8.1–8.4), the type may be composed of DNA sequence data deposited in a public repository.”

The recommendations that follow suggest, in summary, that “the new taxon should be described with reference to a published phylogenetic analysis” (Rec. F.4A.1), that the new taxon “should be represented by multiple sequences obtained in independent studies” (Rec. F.4A.2), and that the sequence should derive from “the molecular regions that are appropriate for delimiting species” (Rec. F.4A.3). These are merely recommendations, however, and need not be followed (as emphasized by Turland & Wiersema 2017).

Species Versus DNA Sequences

It has been argued that “the Code serves only to regulate the valid publication of names, not to pass judgment on the scientific hypotheses embodied in names” (Herr et al. 2015). Although nomenclature can be seen as a “remarkable act of applied metaphysics” (Daston 2004), the circumscription of the taxa being named is a fundamentally scientific process. The proposal recommends that a new taxon “be described with reference to a published phylogenetic analysis” (Rec. F.4A.1 of proposal F-006). This wording implies that it is possible to first circumscribe a new taxon by phylogenetic analysis, then name the new taxon using a DNA sequence type that can be unequivocally associated with the new taxon. For the reasons outlined below, this may not readily be the case at the level of species in recombining organisms, which we suspect is where Art. F.4.2 is most frequently going to be applied.

Assuming that species are understood as somehow separately evolving units (e.g. de Queiroz 1998, 2005, 2007, Hey 2006), they can, sooner or later after formation, be detected using a variety of methods (often misleadingly termed ‘species concepts’; Hey 2006), e.g. reproductive isolation (the ‘biological species concept’), morphology, or genealogical monophyly with or without auxiliary criteria like concordance among genes (corresponding to the genetic versions of ‘phylogenetic species concept’). During a simple divergence of one ancestral species into two daughter species, (nearly) neutral loci will inherit random samples of alleles from the ancestral species, some of which are likely to be shared across the daughter species (ancestral polymorphisms). Given time, ancestral alleles will go extinct randomly and new alleles will arise, in the most likely case causing species to appear non-monophyletic on the gene trees. Finally, species will achieve reciprocal monophyly on the gene trees. This process has been known and described in the literature for decades (e.g. Tajima 1983, Takahata & Nei 1985, Neigel & Avise 1986, Nei 1987, Pamilo & Nei 1988, Takahata 1989, Avise & Ball 1990, Hudson et al. 1992, Hey 1994, Harrison 1998, Avise 2000, Hudson & Coyne 2002, Rosenberg 2003, Coyne & Orr 2004, Naciri & Linder 2015) and has been elegantly explained and illustrated by, for example, Leliaert et al. (2014). The lag time from lineage divergence until reciprocal monophyly in neutral loci will depend on the effective population size, generation time, and population structure (Hudson 1990, Wakeley 2000) and its duration will vary stochastically between nuclear loci in recombining organisms (Hudson & Turelli 2003). Obviously, any species recognition protocol requiring reciprocal monophyly will only be able to detect the species long after they diverged (Hudson & Coyne 2002). Positive selection can substantially shorten the time it takes to remove ancestral polymorphisms and finally reach reciprocal monophyly. The proportion of the genome undergoing positive selection during and after speciation appears to be small, however, probably reaching at most a few per cent (e.g., 1.1 and 1.7% of the genes in humans and chimpanzee, respectively; Bakewell et al. 2007). As an aside, the stochastic process finally leading to reciprocal monophyly in the individual genes also means that there cannot exist a universal divergence threshold for delimiting fungal (or other) species using DNA sequences, not for the very widely used internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region in fungi (e.g. Nilsson et al. 2008, Badotti et al. 2017), nor any other DNA region in any organism group (e.g. Meier et al. 2006 concerning metazoans).

Gene histories, a standard product in applied phylogenetics, cannot automatically be equated with the species history (e.g. Tajima 1983, Pamilo & Nei 1988, Maddison 1997, Knowles & Carstens 2007). There is no reason to think that any DNA region or any organism group is free of mechanisms that create a discordance between the gene and species histories. Such mechanisms have been found to be widespread across the tree of life (e.g. Sota & Vogler 2001, Rautenberg et al. 2008, Blanco-Pastor et al. 2012, Kutschera et al. 2014, Lamichhaney et al. 2015, Garrido et al. 2017, Kudryavtseva & Gladkikh 2017, Meyer et al. 2017, Parks et al. 2017, Peyrégne et al. 2017, Vd’ačný 2017). Incongruence between gene histories, demonstrating that at least some of them must be different from the history of the species, has indeed also been demonstrated to occur in the fungi (e.g. O’Donnell & Cigelnik 1997, Sung et al. 2007, Harder et al. 2013, Altermann et al. 2014, Saag et al. 2014, Stewart et al. 2014). A conflict between the gene histories and species history is not only caused by the randomness of genetic drift described above. Other mechanisms, all observed also in fungi, obscure relationships among taxa and some (the first three) have the potential to cause non-identifiability of a single DNA sequence: the exchange of entire nuclei between heterospecific fungal syncytia, horizontal gene transfer, hybridization (sometimes followed by introgression or allopolyploidy), gene duplication (including also pseudogene and numt formation), and intra-individual variability in the ribosomal DNA repeat caused by limits to concerted evolution (Dean et al. 2005, Ruths & Nakhleh 2005, Jeffroy et al. 2006, Neafsey et al. 2010, Ellison et al. 2011, Lindner & Banik 2011, Roper et al. 2011, Hughes et al. 2013, Li et al. 2013, Lindner et al. 2013, Gladieux et al. 2014, Som 2014, Naciri & Linder 2015, Shapiro et al. 2016, Thiéry et al. 2016, Fourie et al. 2017, Li et al. 2017, Hughes et al. 2018, Steenkamp et al. 2018). Obviously, species delineations generated from a single marker cannot be evaluated using data from the same marker, because that would make the argument circular.

We conclude that a DNA sequence of an allele cannot be seen as “corresponding to” any taxon (the wording of the proposal), but represents the diversity of alleles of the gene from which it was derived. An allele cannot be expected to be unique to the species from which it was derived and we cannot know whether or not alleles are unique to a species when sequence data are only available from a single or a limited number of markers and individuals (e.g. the popular ITS barcode in fungi; Schoch et al. 2012, Badotti et al. 2017). “If species membership is contingent for organisms in general, it ought to be contingent for those chosen as the type specimens for their species” (Levine 2001). Having said that, some of these pitfalls are more easily detected and remedied when the number of markers is high and methods designed to handle them (including but not limited to versions of the ‘phylogenetic analysis’ prescribed by Rec. F.4A.1) are applied (Dupuis et al. 2012, Fujita et al. 2012).

Impact on Nomenclatural Types (Specimens Versus DNA Sequences)

An acceptance of the proposal would fundamentally alter the meaning of nomenclatural types. This is because instead of using a physical object as the type of a name, we would just use information from a character of the organism as the type. Indeed, the parallel to the designation of a DNA sequence as a type would be the designation of information extracted from organisms (specimens) as types, not with the designation of specimens as types. In other words, this would be akin to designating a sample of spore measurements as the type of an organism. It should be noted that the possibility to select a description as a type existed before the publication of the Berlin Code in 1988. However, this option was eventually rejected by the scientific community, and removed from the Berlin Code with this note in the Preface: “The provision that existed for a type to be a description under certain circumstances — something that many felt amounted to a repudiation of the type method — has been deleted from the Code” (Greuter et al. 1988: viii).

Names of taxa are applied to organisms, not to characters of those organisms. Therefore, a physical object should preferably serve as the type of a name, rather than the characteristics of that object. By allowing already extracted data, such as a DNA sequence, to serve as type instead of the source of the data, new information cannot be obtained when this is required (see below). In addition, we suspect that bypassing the current concept of a type is often unnecessary, because techniques exist to visualize fungal DNA with high specificity (Baschien et al. 2001, Behrens et al. 2003, Inácio et al. 2003, Baschien et al. 2008, Vági et al. 2014, Spribille et al. 2016). Although not yet standard parts of the mycological toolbox, such techniques can with relative ease be applied to locate physical specimens even for taxa that cannot currently be cultivated.

According to the ICN, a nomenclatural type is “that element to which the name of a taxon is permanently attached, whether as the correct name or as a synonym” (Art. 7.2). For species-level taxa and infraspecific taxa, which are the basic units in taxonomy, a type is “either a single specimen conserved in one herbarium or other collection or institution, or an illustration” (Art. 8.1). Why have researchers agreed to keep these definitions for such a long time? The answer is straightforward: because types are an almost never-ending source of information, as they can be analyzed by different people using different methods and thus provide new answers. Every time a type specimen is re-examined, there is an opportunity to extract new information, which may be useful for solving problems that are constantly arising as our knowledge increases. Most types are specimens (especially nowadays) because a specimen of any living organism is such a complex entity that it is hard to imagine us being able to extract all the possible information contained in it. These properties have already been considered in an editorial of IMA Fungus written by the President of the International Mycological Association (Seifert 2017). Therefore, even though the problem of non-unique characters used for diagnosis is not restricted to sequence data, the crucial distinction from morphological descriptions of biological type specimens is that having a DNA sequence as type virtually precludes the obtaining of any new information to resolve any taxonomic problems. In contrast, even illustrations, which are now accepted as types only in very specific situations (see Art. 40.5 for the current use of these) and increasingly falling into disuse, may be a source of overlooked information.

Epitype selection may be seen as a possible solution in the expected cases when the DNA sequence alone is insufficient for the precise application of the name of a taxon (Ryberg & Nilsson 2018). Epitypification was conceived as a practical solution in cases when the type of a name turns out to be ambiguous (ICN, Art. 9.8). Epitypes are frequently designated for old names, and they are not free of undesired problems affecting nomenclatural stability (Rindi et al. 2017). Epitypifications have to be based on an existing type, and are often being made because our knowledge or the present technology are the limits for extracting the needed information from the type that already exists. Those limitations may be overcome by other researchers or by new technologies in the future. For DNA sequence data, the type itself would always be the limiting bottleneck, regardless of the researcher’s skills or the progress of science.

Impact on Names of Taxa and Future Taxonomic Studies

The main argument used by Hawksworth et al. (2016), to justify the urgency of allowing DNA sequences as types, is that taxa only known from DNA sequences “require scientific names in order to facilitate communication about them”. While researchers indeed need names of taxa to communicate among colleagues and with the general public, those names are linked to information that makes them useful, like biology, distribution, ecology, morphology, physiology, pathology, etc. (Crous et al. 2015). In other words, we are using scientific names because they are meaningful to a wide range of people.

In addition, taxonomists are aware that an increased number of validly published names will not necessarily facilitate communication. On the contrary, in the not uncommon situation in which the same taxon has been named on several occasions, much confusion may arise until the identity of those names is finally settled. Indeed, taxa based solely on DNA sequences not precisely matching any of those present in public repositories have already been described and fallen into more or less immediate synonymy, because the necessary comparisons with previously described taxa were not undertaken (Gams 2016). The proposals would promote such bad practice.

An undesired side-effect that should also be considered is that, in practice, few researchers will be devoted to re-describing (or actually describing) species that have been previously named based on just a DNA sequence. This has several causes, but among them, there is an important bias in research journals disfavoring the publication of redescriptions of already known taxa, versus the description of new taxa. Another reason is time constraints, since it is not uncommon that specialists do not have the time to properly describe all of the numerous undescribed species they are aware of. This makes them focus on those that are more likely to be published as new species and not on those that have been already described, even if previous descriptions are faulty or defective. Anyhow, having numerous names only based on DNA sequences and few descriptions of the actual organisms would create an enormous number of validly published names applied to taxa for which virtually no information exists.

Reliability and Extent of Data

The proposed Art. F.4.2. effectively means that any DNA sequence of any region and extent, generated by any procedure or taken from a public repository, could serve as the type of a name of a taxon somehow indicated to be new. In practice, the sequence selected as the type could range from an oligonucleotide to the entire genome. The proposal provides very little guidance, except for the recommendations that the type sequence should be represented by “multiple sequences” and that the selected marker should be “appropriate for delimiting species” (proposed Rec. F.4A.2, F.4A.3). It is not clear what ‘multiple’ means or how a marker is established as universally ‘appropriate’. One can infer, however, that the ‘appropriate’ marker will, in most applications, be the ITS region, which has been dubbed as the primary barcode marker in fungi (Schoch et al. 2012).

A major concern is the reliability of the DNA sequence data (Bridge et al. 2003, Nilsson et al. 2006). PCR or cloning errors (including the introduction of chimeras), DNA degradation, and post-processing of chromatograms, have been shown to be a source of sequence variation in at least some groups (Haas et al. 2011, Sandoval-Sierra et al. 2014, Hughes et al. 2015, Strid et al. 2015, Aas et al. 2017, Nilsson et al. 2017, Thielecke et al. 2017, Bieker & Martin 2018). Such DNA sequences are not real and cannot be checked or corrected without access to a physical specimen or, as a minimum, access to the raw sequence reads (Tripp & Lendemer 2014). If accepted as types, this means mycology would embrace irreproducible science.

The concerns outlined here, in combination with the risk of comparing non-orthologous sequences or incompletely concerted copies of the ribosomal DNA, are really about scientific quality and not nomenclature per se. However, nomenclature assumes that taxa are first delineated, then named. The proposal, if implemented, would risk opening the floodgates to poor data and questionable scientific practice being translated into formally named taxa that will throw fungal taxonomy into paralysis and disrepute.

Candidate Names

If we really want to strive for a comprehensive code of nomenclature able to cover all living organisms, it is necessary to consider the rules of the other existing codes of nomenclature. For our purposes, these are mainly the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN; Ride et al. 1999) and the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP; Parker et al. 2015). Also, it is important to consider the use of nomenclature by specialists in different taxonomic groups. In general, we think it is better to strive for standardization of rules instead of sharpening the differences between Codes. The goal should be to create a solid code of nomenclature that, some day, may perhaps cover all living organisms with all their peculiarities (e.g. the BioCode initiative; Greuter et al. 2011, https://doi.org/www.bionomenclature.net/biocode2011.html).

An interesting formula concerning taxa that cannot be properly described under the rules of a code of nomenclature is the use of the term “Candidatus”. Originally, this working term was proposed by Murray & Schleifer (1994), and soon after improved by Murray & Stackebrandt (1995) for “describing prokaryotic entities for which more than a mere sequence is available but for which characteristics required for description according to the Code are lacking”. It was proposed because, under the rules of the ICNP, a prokaryotic organism can only be validly described if the type, which in this case is a living strain, can be conserved as an axenic culture. There are of course thousands of prokaryotic taxa that are not cultivable in such a way. Many of them can, however, be studied with regard to morphology, ecology, metabolism, DNA data, etc. For fungi, having such additional information for a particular cluster of DNA sequences (never a single one), or several DNA regions from the same organism (ultimately and ideally, a complete genome), would be essential to ensure that a true taxon is being provisionally named, and to comply with basic scientific standards.

The Candidatus working term has proved to be a good solution for microbiologists who want to respect the rules of the ICNP as well as to apply useful names to certain taxa. Being aware that important information (e.g. a proper living strain as type) is lacking to allow a formal description, such taxa can be validated when the requirements of the ICNP are fulfilled. The best example of how well this alternative nomenclature works is the Candidate Phyla Radiation, a huge, well-known and well-communicated group of Bacteria that was proposed based on the combined information of hundreds of genomes, obtained from single cells as well as metagenomics (Hug et al. 2016, Danczak et al. 2017).

The alternative of using preliminary names for taxa only known from DNA data has already been proposed by Öpik et al. (2009) as “virtual taxa”, by Taylor (2011) as “ENAS fungi”, by Kõljalg et al. (2013) as “species hypothesis”, and indeed also by Hibbett et al. (2011) as “candidate species”. We think this is an interesting idea that should be further explored and discussed in the future. Such candidate names can be re-evaluated and possibly formally described in the future when enough information has become available to provide a good taxon description (see also Seifert 2017). Finally, they could be used with some freedom, since no specific rules within the codes of nomenclature apply for invalidly published names. If a major concern about fungi only known from DNA sequences is that “they do not enter names-based taxonomic databases” (see Herr et al. 2015), a reasonably easy solution would be to allow the registration of candidate or putative names in those databases, in the process making it clear that those names have not yet been validly published because one or more of the requirements for valid publication are lacking (e.g. https://doi.org/www.bacterio.net/-candidatus.html for candidate names of prokaryotic taxa).

Conclusions

We consider the proposals by Hawksworth et al. (2018) highly problematic for the following reasons:
  • DNA sequence types will have a very low information content; subsequent extraction of additional data or verification of the already extracted data will not be possible.

  • Two different taxa may share identical DNA sequences at a given locus, even for already tested barcoding markers. Conversely, not all members of a species can be assumed to share the same DNA sequence at a specific locus.

  • Intraspecific (or even intraindividual) differences in the DNA sequence of a marker may be comparable to or exceed interspecific differences.

  • Some DNA sequences generated through different sequencing techniques may be artifacts and consequently not represent reality. The proposal does not say anything about data validation other than a recommendation that the DNA sequence should be represented by ‘multiple sequences’.

  • The proposal promotes the mechanical production of taxon names based on minor sequence divergence, without taking any other data (such as genetic variability or already described taxa) into account. Much downstream time will have to be spent by future mycologists gathering additional information.

  • As taxa with DNA sequence types accumulate, the description of a new species will be increasingly difficult without DNA sequence data. Describing new species based on the morphology of unsequenced material will in practice not be feasible if the possibility exists that this species has been described based on a DNA sequence.

  • Since the proposals allow any part of the genome to be used as a DNA type, situations in which different taxa may have been described using different parts of the genome will force researchers to sequence a variety of loci to establish whether an earlier name already exists. Likewise, a single taxon may be described as novel several times using different genomic regions as type. This will be impossible to detect without a specimen from which different genomic regions can be sequenced and may contribute to the description of unnecessary new names.

Final Remarks

As discussed above, there are alternative ways of communicating the existence of taxa only known from DNA data, which do not require modifications to the ICN. Instead of allowing DNA data as types for taxon names, database registration of candidate names can be used for putative new taxa, when their existence has been made plausible based on various sources of information (including but not limited to DNA sequences). A functional system for environmental sequences under the Candidatus or species hypotheses approach could result from a carefully selected set of requirements to ensure high-quality data and reproducibility.

We submit that proposals F-005 and F-006, for the reasons outlined here, will not solve the problems they are intended to solve, disregard knowledge acquired through decades of research in the genetics of speciation, and will instead create confusion and substantial extra work for contemporary and future mycologists. We all have the responsibility to maintain the scientific standards of reproducibility as well as to provide well-considered rules for coming generations, so they can improve on our work and take appropriate, well-informed taxonomic decisions using all available information.

Notes

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We want to express our gratitude to all people who enriched both the text and our views by generously sharing their opinions and scientific experience.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Museum of Evolution, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 16, 75236 Uppsala, Sweden
(2)
National Central University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan
(3)
Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, 28933 Móstoles, Madrid, Spain
(4)
Avenida Padre Claret 7, 5º G, 09400 Aranda de Duero, Burgos, Spain
(5)
Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Vondellaan 55, 2332AA Leiden, The Netherlands
(6)
Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 18D, 75236 Uppsala, Sweden

References

  1. Aas AB, Davey ML, Kauserud H (2017) ITS all right mama: investigating the formation of chimeric sequences in the ITS2 region by DNA metabarcoding analyses of fungal mock communities of different complexities. Molecular Ecology Resources 17: 730–741.Google Scholar
  2. Altermann S, Leavitt SD, Goward T, Nelsen MP, Lumbsch HT (2017) How do you solve a problem like Letharia? A new look at cryptic species in lichen-forming fungi using Bayesian clustering and SNPs from multilocus sequence data. PLoS ONE 9: e97556.Google Scholar
  3. Avise JC (2017) Phylogeography: the history and formation of species. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Avise JC, Ball RM (2017) Principles of genealogical concordance in species concepts and biological taxonomy. Oxford Survey of Evolutionary Biology 7: 45–67.Google Scholar
  5. Badotti K, Silva de Oliveira F, Garcia CF, Martins Vaz AB, Camargos Fonseca PL, et al. (2017) Effectiveness of ITS and sub-regions as DNA barcode markers for the identification of Basidiomycota (Fungi). BMC Microbiology 17: 42.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Bakewell MA, Shi P, Zhang J (2017) More genes underwent positive selection in chimpanzee evolution than in human evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 104: 7489–7494.Google Scholar
  7. Baschien C, Manz W, Neu TR, Szewzyk U (2017) Fluorescence in situ hybridization of freshwater fungi. International Review of Hydrobiology 86: 371–384.Google Scholar
  8. Baschien C, Manz W, Neu TR, Marvanová L, Szewzyk U (2017) In situ detection of freshwater fungi in an alpine stream by new taxon-specific fluorescence in situ hybridization probes. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 74: 6427–6436.Google Scholar
  9. Behrens S, Rühland C, Inácio J, Huber H, Fonseca A, et al. (2017) In situ accessibility of small-subunit rRNA of members of the domains Bacteria, Archaea, and Eucarya to Cy3-labeled oligonucleotide probes. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 69: 1748–1758.Google Scholar
  10. Bieker VC, Martin MD (2017) Implications and future prospects for evolutionary analyses of DNA in historical herbarium collections. Botany Letters: DOI: 10.1080/23818107.2018.1458651.Google Scholar
  11. Blanco-Pastor JL, Vargas P, Pfeil BE (2017) Coalescent simulations reveal hybridization and incomplete lineage sorting in Mediterranean Linaria. PLoS ONE 7: e39089.Google Scholar
  12. Bridge PD, Roberts PJ, Spooner BM, Panchal G (2017) On the unreliability of published DNA sequences. New Phytologist 160: 43–48.Google Scholar
  13. Coyne JA, Orr HA (2017) Speciation. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
  14. Crous PV, Hawksworth DL, Wingfield MJ (2017) Identifying and naming plant-pathogenic fungi: past, present and future. Annual Review of Phytopathology 53: 247–267.Google Scholar
  15. Danczak RE, Johnston MD, Kenah C, Slattery M, Wrighton KC, Wilkins MJ (2017) Members of the Candidate Phyla Radiation are functionally differentiated by carbon- and nitrogen-cycling capabilities. Microbiome 5: 112.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Daston L (2017) Type specimens and scientific memory. Critical Inquiry 31: 153–182.Google Scholar
  17. Dean RA, Talbot NJ, Ebbole D, Farman ML, Mitchell TK, et al. (2017) The genome sequence of the rice blast fungus Magnaporthe grisea. Nature 434: 980–986.Google Scholar
  18. de Queiroz K (2017) The general lineage concept of species, species criteria, and the process of speciation: A conceptual unification and terminological recommendations. In: Endless forms: species and speciation (Howard DJ, Berlocher SH, eds): 57–75. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. de Queiroz K (2017) Ernst Mayr and the modern concept of species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 102: 6600–6607.Google Scholar
  20. de Queiroz K (2017) Species concepts and species delimitation. Systematic Biology 56: 879–886.Google Scholar
  21. Dupuis JR, Roe AD, Sperling FAH (2017) Multi-locus species delimitation in closely related animals and fungi: One marker is not enough. Molecular Ecology 21: 4422–4436.Google Scholar
  22. Ellison CE, Hall C, Kowbel D, Welch J, Brem RB, et al. (2017) Population genomics and local adaptation in wild isolates of a model microbial eukaryote. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 108: 2831–2836.Google Scholar
  23. Fourie G, Van der Merwe NA, Wingfield BD, Bogale M, Wingfield MJ, Steenkamp ET (2017) Mitochondrial introgression and interspecies recombination in the Fusarium fujikuroi species complex. IMA Fungus 9: 37–48.Google Scholar
  24. Fujita MK, Leaché AD, Burbrink FT, McGuire JA, Moritz C (2017) Coalescent-based species delimitation in an integrative taxonomy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 27: 480–488.Google Scholar
  25. Gams W (2017) Are old taxa without living authenticated cultures losing their status? IMA Fungus 7: 72–73.Google Scholar
  26. Garrido JL, Alcántara JM, Rey PJ, Medrano M, Guitián J, et al. (2017) Geographic genetic structure of Iberian columbines (gen. Aquilegia). Plant Systematics and Evolution 303: 1145–1160.Google Scholar
  27. Gladieux P, Ropars J, Badouin H, Branca A, Aguileta G, et al. (2017) Fungal evolutionary genomics provides insight into the mechanisms of adaptive divergence in eukaryotes. Molecular Ecology 23: 753–773.Google Scholar
  28. Greuter W, Burdet HM, Chaloner WG, Demoulin V, Grolle R, et al. (2017) International Code of Botanical Nomenclature adopted by the Fourteenth International Botanical Congress, Berlin, July–August 1987. [Regnum Vegetabile no. 118.] Königstein: Koeltz Scientific Books.Google Scholar
  29. Greuter W, Garrity G, Hawksworth DL, Jahn R, Kirk PM, et al. (2011) Draft BioCode (2011): principles and rules regulating the naming of organisms. Bionomina 1: 26–44; Taxon 60: 201–212; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68: 10–28.Google Scholar
  30. Grossart HP, Wurzbacher C, James TY, Kagami M (2017) Discovery of dark matter fungi in aquatic ecosystems demands a reappraisal of the phylogeny and ecology of zoosporic fungi. Fungal Ecology 19: 28–38.Google Scholar
  31. Haas BJ, Gevers D, Earl AM, Feldgarden M, Ward DV, et al. (2017) Chimeric 16-rRNA sequence formation and detection in Sanger and 454-pyrosequenced PCR amplicons. Genome Research 21: 494–504.Google Scholar
  32. Harder CB, Læssøe T, Frøslev TG, Ekelund F, Rosendahl S, Kjøller R (2017) A three-gene phylogeny of the Mycena pura complex reveals 11 phylogenetic species and shows ITS to be unreliable for species identification. Fungal Biology 117: 764–75.Google Scholar
  33. Harrison RG (2017) Linking evolutionary pattern and process: the relevance of species concepts for the study of speciation. In: Endless Forms: species and speciation (Howard DJ, Berlocher SH, eds): 19–31. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hawksworth DL, Hibbett DS, Kirk PM, Lücking R (2017) (308–310) Proposals to permit DNA sequence data to serve as types of names of fungi. Taxon 65: 899–900.Google Scholar
  35. Hawksworth DL, Hibbett DS, Kirk PM, Lücking R (2017) (F-005-006) Proposals to permit DNA sequence data to be used as types of names of fungi. IMA Fungus 9: v–vi.Google Scholar
  36. Herr JR, Öpik M, Hibbett DS (2017) Towards the unification of sequence-based classification and sequence-based identification of host-associated microorganisms. New Phytologist 205: 27–31.Google Scholar
  37. Hey J (2017) Bridging phylogenetics and population genetics with gene tree models. In: Molecular Ecology and Evolution: approaches and applications (Schierwater B, Streit B, Wagner GP, DeSalle R, eds): 435–449. Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  38. Hey J (2017) On the failure of modern species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21: 447–450.Google Scholar
  39. Hibbett DS, Ohman A, Glotzer D, Nuhn M, Kirk P, Nilsson RH (2017) Progress in molecular and morphological taxon discovery in Fungi and options for formal classification of environmental sequences. Fungal Biology Reviews 25: 38–47.Google Scholar
  40. Hudson RR (2017) Gene genealogies and the coalescent process. Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology 7: 1–43.Google Scholar
  41. Hudson RR, Coyne JA (2017) Mathematical consequences of the genealogical species concept. Evolution 56: 1557–1565.Google Scholar
  42. Hudson RR, Slatkin M, Maddison WP (2017) Estimation of levels of gene flow from DNA sequence data. Genetics 132: 583–589.Google Scholar
  43. Hudson RR, Turelli M (2017) Stochasticity overrules the “threetimes rule”: genetic drift, genetic draft and coalescence times for nuclear loci versus mitochondrial DNA. Evolution 57: 182–190.Google Scholar
  44. Hug LA, Baker BJ, Anantharaman K, Brown CT, Probst AJ, et al. (2017) A new view of the tree of life. Nature Microbiology 1: 16048.Google Scholar
  45. Hughes KW, Petersen RH, Lodge DJ, Bergemann SE, Baumgartner K, et al. (2017) Evolutionary consequences of putative intra-and interspecific hybridization in agaric fungi. Mycologia 105: 1577–1594.Google Scholar
  46. Hughes KW, Morris SD, Reboredo Segovia A (2017) Cloning of ribosomal ITS PCR products creates frequent, non-random chimeric sequences - a test involving heterozygotes between Gymnopus dichrous taxa I and II. MycoKeys 10: 45–56.Google Scholar
  47. Hughes KW, Tulloss RE, Petersen RH (2017) A taxon cryptic with respect to Amanita lavendula is an apparent hybrid swarm that may have failed to undergo concerted evolution of the ribosomal repeat. Mycologia 110 (in press).Google Scholar
  48. Inácio J, Behrens S, Fuchs BM, Fonseca A, Spencer-Martins I, Amann R (2017) In situ accessibility of Saccharomyces cerevisiae 26S rRNA to Cy3-labeled oligonucleotide probes comprising the D1 and D2 domains. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 69: 2899–2905.Google Scholar
  49. Jeffroy O, Brinkmann H, Delsuc, Philippe H (2017) Phylogenomics: the beginning of incongruence? Trends in Genetics 22: 225–231.Google Scholar
  50. Knowles LL, Carstens BC (2017) Delimiting species without monophyletic gene trees. Systematic Biology 56: 887–895.Google Scholar
  51. Kõljalg U, Nilsson RH, Abarenkov K, Tedersoo L, Taylor AFS, et al. (2017) Towards a unified paradigm for sequence-based identification of fungi. Molecular Ecology 22: 5271–5277.Google Scholar
  52. Kudryavtsev A, Gladkikh, A (2017) Two new species of Ripella (Amoebozoa, Vannellida) and unusual intragenomic variability in the SSU rRNA gene of this genus. European Journal of Protistology 61: 92–106.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Kutschera VE, Bidon T, Hailer F, Rodi JL, Fain SR, Janke A (2017) Bears in a forest of gene trees: Phylogenetic inference is complicated by incomplete lineage sorting and gene flow. Molecular Biology and Evolution 31: 2004–2017.Google Scholar
  54. Lamichhaney S, Berglund J, Almen MS, Maqbool K, Grabherr M, et al. (2017) Evolution of Darwin’s finches and their beaks revealed by genome sequencing. Nature 518: 371–377.Google Scholar
  55. Leliaert F, Verbruggen H, Vanormelingen P, Steen F, López-Bautista JM, et al. (2017) DNA-based species delimitation in algae. European Journal of Phycology 49: 179–196.Google Scholar
  56. Levine A (2017) Individualism, type specimens, and the scrutability of species membership. Biology and Philosophy 16: 325–338.Google Scholar
  57. Li Y, Jiao L, Yao YJ (2017) Non-concerted ITS evolution in fungi, as revealed from the important medicinal fungus Ophiocordyceps sinensis. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 68: 373–379.Google Scholar
  58. Li Y, Yang R-H, Jiang L, Hu X-D, Wu Z-J, Yao Y-J (2017) rRNA pseudogenes in filamentous ascomycetes as revealed by genome data. G3 7: 2695–2703.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Lindner DL, Banik MT (2017) Intragenomic variation in the ITS rDNA region obscures phylogenetic relationships and inflates estimates of operational taxonomic units in genus Laetiporus. Mycologia 103: 731–740.Google Scholar
  60. Lindner DL, Carlsen T, Nilsson RH, Davei M, Schumacher T, Kauserud H (2017) Employing 454 amplicon pyrosequencing to reveal intragenomic divergence in the internal transcribed spacer rDNA region in fungi. Ecology and Evolution 3: 1751–1764.Google Scholar
  61. Maddison WP (2017) Gene trees in species trees. Systematic Biology 46: 523–536.Google Scholar
  62. Meier R, Shiyang K, Vaidya G, Ng PKL (2017) DNA Barcoding and taxonomy in Diptera: A tale of high intraspecific variability and low identification success. Systematic Biology 55: 715–728.Google Scholar
  63. Meyer BS, Matschiner M, Salzburger W (2017) Disentangling incomplete lineage sorting and introgression to refine speciestree estimates for Lake Tanganyika cichlid fishes. Systematic Biology 66: 531–550.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Murray RG, Schleifer KH (2017) Taxonomic notes: a proposal for recording the properties of putative taxa of prokaryotes. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology 44: 174–176.Google Scholar
  65. Murray RG, Stackebrandt E (2017) Taxonomic note: implementation of the provisional status Candidatus for incompletely described procaryotes. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology 45: 186–187.Google Scholar
  66. Naciri Y, Linder HP (2017) Species delimitation and relationships: the dance of the seven veils. Taxon 64: 3–16.Google Scholar
  67. Neafsey DE, Barker BM, Sharpton TJ, Stajich JE, Park DJ, et al. (2017) Population genomic sequencing of Coccidioides fungi reveals recent hybridization and transposon control. Genome Research 20: 938–946.Google Scholar
  68. Nei M (2017) Molecular evolutionary genetics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Neigel JE, Avise JC (2017) Phylogenetic relationships of mitochondrial DNA under various demographic models of speciation. In: Evolutionary Processes and Theory (Nevo E, Karlin S, eds): 515–534. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  70. Nilsson RH, Ryberg M, Kristiansoon E, Abarenkov K, Larsson KH, Urmas K (2017) Taxonomic realiability of DNA sequences in public sequence databases: a fungal perspective. PLoS ONE 1: e59.Google Scholar
  71. Nilsson RH, Kristiansson E, Ryberg M, Hallenberg N, Larsson K-H (2017) Intraspecific ITS variability in the kingdom Fungi as expressed in the international sequence databases and its implications for molecular species identification. Evolutionary Bioinformatics 4: 193–201.Google Scholar
  72. Nilsson RH, Sánchez-García M, Ryberg M, Abarenkov K, Wurzbacher C, Kristiansson E (2017) Read quality-based trimming of the distal ends of public fungal DNA sequences is nowhere near satisfactory. MycoKeys 26: 13–24.Google Scholar
  73. O’Donnell K, Cigelnik E (2017) Two divergent intragenomic rDNA ITS2 types within a monophyletic lineage of the fungus Fusarium are nonorthologous. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 7: 103–116.Google Scholar
  74. Öpik M, Metsis M, Daniell TJ, Zobel M, Moora M (2017) Large-scale parallell 454 sequencing reveals host ecological group specificity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in a boreonemoral forest. New Phytologist 184: 424–437.Google Scholar
  75. Pamilo P, Nei M (2017) Relationships between gene trees and species trees. Molecular Biology and Evolution 5: 568–583.Google Scholar
  76. Parker CT, Tindall BJ, Garrity GM (2017) International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology: DOI: 10.1099/ijsem.0.000778.Google Scholar
  77. Parks MB, Wickett NJ, Alverson AJ (2017) Signal, uncertainty, and conflict in phylogenomic data for a diverse lineage of microbial eukaryotes (Diatoms, Bacillariophyta). Molecular Biology and Evolution 35: 80–93.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  78. Rautenberg A, Filatov D, Svennblad B, Heidari N, Oxelman B (2017) Conflicting phylogenetic signals in the SlX1/Y1 gene in Silene. BMC Evolutionary Biology 8: 299.Google Scholar
  79. Ride WDL, Cogger HG, Dupuis C, Kraus O, Minelli A, et al. (2017) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 4th edn. London: International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature.Google Scholar
  80. Rindi F, Ryšánek D, Škaloud P (2017) Problems of epitypification in morphologically simple green microalgae: a case study of two widespread species of Klebsormidium (Klebsormidiophyceae, Streptophyta). Fottea, Olomouc 17: 78–88.Google Scholar
  81. Roper M, Ellison C, Taylor JW, Glass NL (2017) Nuclear and genome dynamics in multinucleate ascomycete fungi. Current Biology 21: R786–R793.Google Scholar
  82. Rosenberg NA (2017) The shapes of neutral gene genealogies in two species: probabilities of monophyly, paraphyly, and polyphyly in a coalescent model. Evolution 57: 1465–1477.Google Scholar
  83. Ruths D, Nakhleh L (2017) Recombination and phylogeny: effects and detection. International Journal of Bioinformatics Research and Applications 1: 202–211.Google Scholar
  84. Ryberg M, Nilsson RH (2017) New light on names and naming of dark taxa. MycoKeys 30: 31–39.Google Scholar
  85. Saag L, Mark K, Saag A, Randlane T (2017) Species delimitation in the lichenized fungal genus Vulpicida (Parmeliaceae, Ascomycota) using gene concatenation and coalescent-based species tree approaches. American Journal of Botany 101: 169–2182.Google Scholar
  86. Sandoval-Sierra JV, Martín MP, Diéguez-Uribeondo J (2017) Species identification in the genus Saprolegnia (Oomycetes): Defining DNA-based molecular operational units. Fungal Biology 118: 559–578.Google Scholar
  87. Schoch CL, Seifert KA, Huhndorf S, Robert V, Spouge JL, et al. (2017) Nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region as a universal DNA barcode for Fungi. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 109: 6241–6246.Google Scholar
  88. Seifert KA (2017) When should we describe species? IMA Fungus 8: 37–39.Google Scholar
  89. Shapiro BJ, Leducq J-B, Mallet J (2017) What is speciation? PLoS Genetics 12(3): e1005806.Google Scholar
  90. Som A (2017) Causes, consequences and solution of phylogenetic incongruence. Briefings in Bioinformatics 16: 536–548.Google Scholar
  91. Sota T, Vogler AP (2017) Incongruence between mitochondrial and nuclear gene genealogy in the carabid beetles Ohomopterus. Systematic Biology 50: 39–59.Google Scholar
  92. Spribille T, Tuovinen V, Resl P, Vanderpool D, Wolinski H, et al. (2017) Basidiomycete yeasts in the cortex of ascomycete macrolichens. Science 253: 488–492.Google Scholar
  93. Steenkamp ET, Wingfield MJ, McTaggart AR, Wingfield BD (2017) Fungal species and their boundaries matter — Definitions, mechanisms and practical implications. Fungal Biology Reviews 32: 104–116.Google Scholar
  94. Stewart JE, Timmer LW, Lawrence CB, Pryor BM, Peever TL (2017) Discord between morphological and phylogenetic species boundaries: incomplete lineage sorting and recombination results in fuzzy species boundaries in an asexual fungal pathogen. BMC Evolutionary Biology 14: 38.Google Scholar
  95. Strid Y, Ihrmark K, Stenlid J (2017) The primer fITS9 prevents chimera formation during fungal DNA amplification in a bark beetle DNA background. Forest Pathology 45: 9–13.Google Scholar
  96. Sung G-H, Sung J-M, Hywel-Jones NL, Spatafora JW (2017) A multi-gene phylogeny of Clavicipitaceae (Ascomycota, Fungi): Identification of localized incongruence using a combinational bootstrap approach. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 44: 1204–1223.Google Scholar
  97. Tajima F (2017) Evolutionary relationships of DNA sequences in finite populations. Genetics 105: 437–460.Google Scholar
  98. Takahata N (2017) Gene genealogy in three related populations: consistency probability between gene and population trees. Genetics 122: 957–966.Google Scholar
  99. Takahata N, Nei M (2017) Gene genealogy and variance of interpopulational nucleotide differences. Genetics 110: 325–344.Google Scholar
  100. Taylor JW (2017) One fungus = one name: DNA and fungal nomenclature twenty years after PCR. IMA Fungus 2: 113–120.Google Scholar
  101. Thielecke L, Aranyossy T, Dahl A, Tiwari R, Roeder I, et al. (2017) Limitations and challenges of genetic barcode quantification. Scientific Reports 7: 43249.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  102. Thiéry O, Vasar M, Jairus T, Davison J, Roux C, et al. (2017) Sequence variation in nuclear ribosomal small subunit, internal transcribed spacer and large subunit regions of Rhizophagus irregularis and Gigaspora margarita is high and isolate-dependent. Molecular Ecology 25: 2816–2832.Google Scholar
  103. Tripp EA, Lendemer JC (2017) Sleepless nights: when you can’t find anything to use but molecules to describe new taxa. Taxon 63: 969–971.Google Scholar
  104. Turland N, Wiersema J (2017) Synopsis of proposals on nomenclature — Shenzhen 2017: A review of the proposals concerning the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants submitted to the XIX International Botanical Congress. Taxon 66: 217–274.Google Scholar
  105. Turland N, Wiersema J, Monro AM, Deng Y-F, Zhang L (2017) XIX International Botanical Congress: report of Congress action on nomenclature proposals. Taxon 66: 1234–1245.Google Scholar
  106. Vági P, Knapp DG, Kósa A, Seress D, Horváth ÁN, Kovács GM (2017) Simultaneous specific in planta visualization of root colonizing fungi using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Mycorrhiza 24: 259–266.Google Scholar
  107. Vd’ačný P (2017) Integrative taxonomy of ciliates: assessment of molecular phylogenetic content and morphological homology testing. European Journal of Protistology 61: 388–398.Google Scholar
  108. Wakeley J (2017) The effects of subdivision on the genetic divergence of populations and species. Evolution 54: 1092–1101.Google Scholar
  109. Peyrégne S, Boyle MJ, Dannemann M, Prüfer K (2017) Detecting ancient positive selection in humans using extended lineage sorting. Genome Research 27: 1563–1572.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© International Mycological Association 2018

Advertisement