Observation 89476: Xylaria cubensis (Mont.) Fr.
When: 2012-03-16
Herbarium specimen reported

Proposed Names

29% (1)
Recognized by sight
85% (1)
Recognized by sight: This is the correct name under the new IBC regulations which say that anamorphs and telemorphs should go under the same name, with the one that was published first having priority.
Used references: See http://www.ingentaconnect.com/...

Please login to propose your own names and vote on existing names.

Eye3 = Observer’s choice
Eyes3 = Current consensus


Add Comment
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2012-03-17 16:29:42 PDT (-0700)

I hear you. I concealed the remorse in the first comment. For the sake of empathy, know that the message killed a small part of the messenger when he read it.

It makes sense and it doesn’t. I think the decision is a good one overall, but it may be cause for some serious confusion as it stands currently. I wouldn’t mind seeing a modifier somewhere in the name to denote teleo- or anamormorphic status. Otherwise, the layman has to reconcile two outrageously different looking organisms — at the micro and macroscopic levels — having the exact same name. Of course, I’m just plain bummed to see one of my favorite mycological niches, anamorphic entomopathogens, effectively lose the right to have unique names, names I was just barely beginning to get the hang of.

Your mourning is not alone, nor in vain, sir Brunette. We are sailors on a small vessel in constant storms. We have weathered worse, and are always the better for it. Chin up.

wah wah, sucks to be us.
By: Debbie Viess (amanitarita)
2012-03-17 16:18:10 PDT (-0700)

on the other hand, the anamorph of this thing is waaaaay cooler, visually speaking, than that crusty old teleomorph, in my IMNSHO. It’s LUCKY to share the same name! ;)

By: damon brunette (damonbrunette)
2012-03-17 16:09:09 PDT (-0700)

You are a buzz kill. I know you’ll be all “don’t shoot the messenger” , but this was a fact best left buried. It’s hard to imagine those names will die anytime soon.

article below
By: Danny Newman (myxomop)
2012-03-17 15:35:31 PDT (-0700)

I had heard tale of this proposal ages ago but was unaware of its official passage into ICN law. The same issue of Taxon remarks on the name change from The International Code of Botanical Nomenclature to The International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants; a mighty point in the mushroom column.

begin quote:


Major changes to the Code of Nomenclature—Melbourne, July 2011
John McNeill1 & Nicholas J. Turland2

1 Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, and Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 20A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, Scotland, U.K.

2 Missouri Botanical Garden, P.O. Box 299, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-0299, U.S.A.
Author for correspondence: John McNeill, jmcneill@rgbe.ac.uk

  • One fungus, one name

For over 100 years, the Code has permitted separate names
for asexual and sexual phases of those fungi whose life history
involves morphological expressions so different that, until recently,
it was commonly impossible to link one to the other.
Molecular studies have changed this situation very substantially,
and more and more connections are being made, so that
the asexual phase (the anamorph) and the sexual phase (the
teleomorph) of the one fungal species are increasingly being
As this was an exception to one of the basic principles
of the Code, that a taxon circumscribed in a particular way
can have only one correct name, it has become increasingly
anomalous to have separate names for the anamorph and the
teleomorph phases of the one fungal species, and the concept
of one name for one fungus has become increasingly supported
by mycologists.
The Nomenclature Section agreed to delete this anomalous
provision (contained in Art. 59), so that different names applying
to asexual and sexual morphs of the same fungus compete
for priority in the same manner as other names (i.e., based on
date of publication). Because, currently, the name applied to
the whole fungus (the holomorph) has to be one that is based
on a teleomorphic element, an additional new set of rules was
accepted that will allow lists of widely used names to be protected
en masse, or lists of names of uncertain application to
be rejected en masse, so as to minimize the nomenclatural
disruption that would otherwise be caused by applying the rule
of priority strictly.

Created: 2012-03-16 10:00:09 PDT (-0700)
Last modified: 2012-03-17 12:32:04 PDT (-0700)
Viewed: 196 times, last viewed: 2016-10-26 19:02:49 PDT (-0700)
Show Log