Accès membres

Mot de passe perdu? S'inscrire

09-07-2020 00:39

Valencia Lopez Francisco Javier

Hola a todosEncontré este curioso ascomycete a me

10-07-2020 17:50

Garcia Susana

Hola, Me gustaría vuestra ayuda para identificar

07-07-2020 13:34

Sergey Markov

I found this peziza sp. on loamy soil - on the gro

08-07-2020 00:01

Shane John

I would ask the indulgence of the group to perhaps

08-07-2020 16:47

Chris Yeates Chris Yeates

Bonjour tous While searching for the downy mildew

10-07-2020 14:26

Thomas Læssøe

Anybody in the know of eg Pseudoneottispora?See: 

08-07-2020 19:01

Nicolas VAN VOOREN Nicolas VAN VOOREN

Bonjour.Je ne remets plus la main sur mon tiré-à

08-07-2020 20:29

Juuso Äikäs

These were growing on a dead grass stalk in a fore

08-07-2020 18:21

Castillo Joseba Castillo Joseba

me mandan el material seco recolectado en mdera si

08-07-2020 10:59

Joanne Taylor

Hi there,Does anyone have a copy of the following

« < 1 2 3 4 5 > »
One Fungus One Name (1F1N)
Peter Thompson, 05-06-2020 13:53
Hello Everyone,


I would be interested in your opinions in connection with this rather controversial topic, which was raised and voted through at the IMA2 Conference in July 2011.

Currently, I am reviewing a British Red Data Assessment of fungi from the ascomycota, with some species from what I call the hyphomycota, including some where the conidial and sexual states of the same fungus are known.


Has anyone heard of 1F1N?
Does anyone work in accordance with it?
In 2011, was enough consideration given to the practicalities of implementing 1F1N worldwide?
Do you believe that mycologists at all levels and in all countries are / were adequately prepared for this concept?
Do you believe that there is enough widely available mycological documentation, such as linked pairs of illustrated descriptions of the conidial and sexual states of each fungus, to enable 1F1N to work?
Are you in favour of, or against the 1F1N concept, which was apparently 'imposed' upon laboratory and field mycologists worldwide in July 2011?

Thank You,
With Best Wishes,
Peter.

Hans-Otto Baral, 05-06-2020 22:23
Hans-Otto Baral
Re : One Fungus One Name (1F1N)
Dear Peter

1F1N (one name for one fungus) is a change in the Code being established by democratic election some years ago. Although I was not convinced at the beginning, I must finally say that it was a good decision to avoid different names for ana- and teleomorph in the future and also retroactive in the past. You can imagine for instance in Orbilia, when there would have been the necessity to give any anamorph a separate name, as it was usual in earlier times. I remember Sarcoscypha had as anamorph Molliardiomyces, and each Sarcoscypha species had also a Molliardiomyces name in cases when the spores germinated by forming conidia or the fungus formed conidia in an agar plate.

Zotto
Stip Helleman, 05-06-2020 22:26
Stip Helleman
Re : One Fungus One Name (1F1N)
Hello Peter

It is no contraverse any more, but in many cases the (genus) name of the teleomorph is preserved over the anamorph when possible, so it depends on the publication date of a name as before but without consideration of the fungusses stage or the preservation of a name, the name is now xxxx teleomorph or xxx anamorph. you have a article of recommendations in your mailbox
But from many species we don't have a idea about the ana-teleo connection.

Best,

Stip
Angel Pintos, 06-06-2020 19:49
Angel Pintos
Re : One Fungus One Name (1F1N)
ONE FUNGUS ONE NAME in my opinion seems like a wise decision. In nature the holomorph is not always found. 
different stages of the same organism then it is the same, one name is ok

Hans-Otto Baral, 06-06-2020 20:30
Hans-Otto Baral
Re : One Fungus One Name (1F1N)
These recommendation papers propose generic names to be used based on the higher number of combinations that exist or on the more numerous hits in web searches. In some cases it was the sexually typified name, in other cases the asexually typified name. For instance, Hypocrea is now a synonym of the recommended Trichoderma.

Of course, not all cases are solved, many are only assumed anamorph-teleomorph relations, and for those cases no recommendation was proposed so far.

Zotto
Peter Thompson, 06-06-2020 20:33
Re : One Fungus One Name (1F1N)
Hello Zotto, Stip and Angel,

Thank you for your contributions on this topic.

Zotto - If the name of the anamorph were to take priority over that of the sexual state ascomycete in, for example, 33% of the species in your Monograph of the Orbiliomycetes and these 33% were spread through the document, would you find this problematic?

Stip - Thank you for attaching the document of Recommendations for Generic Names. It was published six years ago and I wonder whether the continued use of the sexual state names, which were proposed, were accepted? 

Some, such as the replacement of Pyrenopeziza with Cylindrosporium, would seem to be very difficult to work with in field mycology, as in most cases there are unlikely to be descriptions and illustrations of their anamorphic states readily available. 

I suppose that including synonyms in documentation will be perfectly permissible, such as
Fusarium roseum Link
= Gibberella cyanogena (Desm.) Sacc.


With Best Wishes,
Peter.


Hans-Otto Baral, 06-06-2020 20:46
Hans-Otto Baral
Re : One Fungus One Name (1F1N)
Peter, I will give you an example: We have combined Arthrobotrys oligosporus in Orbilia as O. oligospora. The type of the species is the anamorph type specimen or diagnosis, but the name O. oligospora now stands for the apothecial stage as well.

All of our new species are in the first place based on a voucher specimen of the sexual morph, but in all of them fo which we could provide evidence of an asexual morph relationship this asexual morph is also part of the protologue, though not always present in the holotype if it was obtained in pure culture only.

So the single names of fungi that are now in use are typified either by the sexual morph, or the asexual morph, or both, but they stand for all morphs of a fungus.

By the way, the genus Pyrenopeziza was not placed in synonymy, the proposal in Johnston et al. reads: Protect Pyrenopeziza 1870 (S) over Cylindrosporium 1823 (A).