Search

Summary: An addition to the list of names for protection under Art. F.2.1 from the Cordyceps Working Group, containing two names of genera, is approved. The following two family names are recommended for conservation: Physaraceae against Fuliginaceae; and Metschnikowiaceae against Nectaromycetaceae and Torulopsidaceae. The following six generic names are recommended for conservation: Blastomyces Gilchrist & W.R. Stokes against Blastomyces Costantin & Rolland; Cercospora with a conserved type; Didymium against Mucilago and Spumaria; Discula with a conserved type; Metschnikowia against Torulopsis; and Phyllopsora against Triclinum and Crocynia. The proposal concerning the gender of the genus Glomus is referred to the General Committee. The following 15 species names are recommended for conservation: Agaricus cingulatus (Tricholoma cingulatum) against A. ramentaceus; A. psammopus (Tricholoma psammopus) against A. concolor; Apioporthe corni (Aurantioporthe corni, Cryptodiaporthe corni) against Sphaeronaema aurantiacum and Myxosporium nitidum; Ditiola mucida (Holwaya mucida) against Acrospermum caliciiforme (Crinula caliciiformis); Entoloma sericeum against Agaricus pascuus (E. pascuum); Geoglossum uliginosum Hakelier against G. uliginosum (Pers.) P. Crouan & H. Crouan; Microsphaera alphitoides (Erysiphe alphitoides) with a conserved type; Peziza cinnamomea (Pezicula cinnamomea) against Naemaspora grisea; Phyllosticta yuccae against Leptodothiorella notabilis; Puccinia psidii (Austropuccinia psidii) against Caeoma eugeniarum and Uredo neurophila; Tolypocladium inflatum against Cordyceps subsessilis; Tricholoma sciodes against Agaricus hordus; Tuber aestivum Vittad. against T. aestivum (Wulfen) Spreng. and T. blotii; T. magnatum against T. griseum; and T. melanosporum against T. nigrum. The following two species names are recommended for rejection under Art. 56: Ramularia gibba and Tuber cibarium. Proposal 2307 (concerning Hypocrea lutea (Tode) Petch) is no longer relevant, following the removal in the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) of Art. 57.2 of the Melbourne Code (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012). Proposal 2233 (to conserve Bipolaris against Cochliobolus) and four proposals concerning names in Trichoderma and Hypocrea (2305, 2306, 2308 and 2309) have been withdrawn because the names were included in a list for protection from an approved working group: for Bipolaris, the Dothideomycetes Working Group, and for Trichoderma, the International Subcommission on Trichoderma and Hypocrea. Three works by Paulet, the unpaginated "Index" of Traité des champignons and two editions of Tabula plantarum fungosarum, are recommended for suppression under Art. 34. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Information on appointments to the Fungal Nomenclature Bureau is provided. Appointments to two Special‐purpose Committees are reported. The following four generic names are recommended for conservation: Bilimbia with a conserved type; Coccotrema against Lepolichen; Fuscidea against Maronea; and Leptogium (lichenized Ascomycota) with a conserved type. The following two generic names are not recommended for conservation: Marcelaria against Buscalionia; and Variolaria Pers. against Lepra and Variolaria Bull. The following seven species names are recommended for conservation: Lecidea parmeliarum (Abrothallus parmeliarum) against Endocarpon parasiticum; Lichen cervinus (Acarospora cervina) with a conserved type; L. ferrugineus (Blastenia ferruginea) with a conserved type; L. flavus Bellardi (Pleopsidium flavum) against L. flavus Schreb.; Megaspora verrucosa (Ach.) Arcadia & A. Nordin against M. verrucosa Hafellner & V. Wirth.; Umbilicaria spodochroa with a conserved type and with that spelling; and Usnea fulvoreagens with a conserved type. The following three species names are not recommended for conservation: Alectoria fuscescens (Bryoria fuscescens), nom. cons., against the additional names Usnea implexa, A. capillaris, A. cana, A. rubens, A. fuscidula, A. degenii, A. forissii, A. ostrobotniae, A. kuemmerleana, A. haynaldiae, A. achariana, A. lanestris, A. prostratosteola, and A. viridescens; Lichen fuscovirens (Collema fuscovirens) against L. pulcher; and Ochrolechia szatalaensis against Pertusaria poriniza. The following two species names are recommended for rejection under Art. 56: Lecidea cornea and Lichen conspurcatus. The following generic name is recommended for rejection under Art. 56: Huea (and the original proposal to conserve Huea with a conserved type is not recommended). It is recommended that the species name Variolaria torta not be rejected under Art. 56. The proposal to conserve Pertusariaceae against Variolariaceae is considered unnecessary because the latter name is illegitimate. The Nomenclature Committee for Fungi could not arrive at a recommendation on the proposal to conserve Lagerheimia (De Toni) Chodat against Lagerheima Sacc. and nor resolve requests for binding decisions on whether the pair Geisleria Nitschke and Geissleria Lange‐Bert. & Metzeltin and the pair Lagerheima Sacc. and Lagerheimia (De Toni) Chodat are sufficiently alike to be confused – but these three items have now been resolved by the General Committee. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A special‐purpose Committee on DNA Sequences as Types was established at the XIX International Botanical Congress (IBC) in Shenzhen, China, in 2017, with a mandate to report to the XX IBC in Madrid in 2024 with recommendations on a preferred course of action with respect to potential amendments of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants to allow DNA sequences as types. This is the first in an expected series of papers from the Special‐purpose Committee on this issue. We set out the background to the establishment of the Committee, explore key issues around typification that are pertinent to the question of DNA sequences as types, enumerate pros and cons of allowing DNA sequences as types, and foreshadow options for future discussion and potential recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Byline: Tom W. May, Jerry A. Cooper, Anders Dahlberg, Giuliana Furci, David W. Minter, Gregory M. Mueller, Alison Pouliot, Zhuliang Yang ***** No abstract is available for this article. ***** Article Note: Article impact statement: Conservation mycology is a newly introduced discipline relevant to conservation biologists, mycologists, ecologists, and conservation policy.

Fungal taxonomy is a fundamental discipline that aims to recognise all fungi and their kinships. Approximately 5% of a practical estimate of 2.2–3.8 million species globally are currently known, and consequently the Fungal Tree of Life (FTOL) is very incompletely reconstructed. With the advances of new technologies, mycology is marching into the interdisciplinary and globalisation era. To make fungal taxonomy relevant, innovative sampling methods and phylogenomics analyses should be performed to reconstruct a much more comprehensive FTOL. In association with this densely sampled FTOL, multiomics will reveal what drives fungal species diversification and how fungal traits evolve to adapt to various environments, while metagenomics will facilitate the understanding and protection of the ecological functions of fungi. A coordinated approach to pursuing these research agendas that includes conceiving of and costing a mission to describe all the fungi on the planet will unlock potential of fungi to support sustainable development of our society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To compare the accuracy of three popular mushroom identification software applications in identifying mushrooms involved in exposures reported to the Victorian Poisons Information Centre and Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria. Over the past 10 years, an increasing number of software applications have been developed for use on smart phones and tablet devices to identify mushrooms. We have observed an increase in poisonings after incorrect identification of poisonous species as edible, using these applications. We compared the accuracy of three iPhone™ and Android™ mushroom identification applications: Picture Mushroom (Next Vision Limited©), Mushroom Identificator (Pierre Semedard©), and iNaturalist (iNaturalist, California Academy of Sciences©). Each app was tested independently by three researchers using digital photographs of 78 specimens sent to the Victorian Poisons Information Centre and Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria over a two-year period, 2020–2021. Mushroom identification was confirmed by an expert mycologist. For each app, individual and combined results were compared. Picture Mushroom was the most accurate of the three apps and correctly identified 49% (95% CI [0–100]) of specimens, compared with Mushroom Identificator (35% [15–56]) and iNaturalist (35% [0–76]). Picture Mushroom correctly identified 44% of poisonous mushrooms [0–95], compared with Mushroom Identificator (30% [1–58]) and iNaturalist (40% [0–84), but Mushroom Identificator identified more specimens of Amanita phalloides correctly (67%), compared to Picture Mushroom (60%) and iNaturalist (27%). Amanita phalloides was falsely identified, twice by Picture Mushroom and once by iNaturalist. Mushroom identification applications may be useful future tools to assist clinical toxicologists and the general public in the accurate identification of mushrooms species but, at present, are not reliable enough to exclude exposure to potentially poisonous mushrooms when used alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]