Departamento de Biología Vegetal II, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Plaza Ramón y Cajal, Madrid 28040, Spain; Department of Life Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK; Department of Biology and Chemistry, Birkbeck University of London, Malet Street, Bloomsbury, London WC1E 7HX, UK.
IMA Fungus. 2013 Jul;4(1):53-6. doi: 10.5598/imafungus.2013.04.01.06. Epub 2013 Apr 4.
The abolition of the separate naming of different morphs of the same fungal species in 2011 will inevitably result in many name changes in some genera. The working practices commended here are intended to minimize one category of these changes, that which can arise as a consequence of an author using the epithet of an asexual morph when describing the sexual morph of the same species. We consider that name proposed for the sexual morph in such cases should be treated as a formal error for a new combination and not as a new species, and so be corrected. This is interpreted as applying even where the author indicated that a new species was being described and designated a type. We argue that those formalities were a result of the requirements of the rules then in force, as the author recognized that a morph of a named species was being described, and not a new hitherto unnamed species was being reported - but was barred from making a new combination so used the same epithet for the new morph name instead. Where a type with the sexual morph was designated for the sexual morph, under this interpretation that no longer has nomenclatural status, the type being that of the basionym. The material for the sexual morph indicated as a type, would be available for designation as an epitype, though a modern sequenced sample with both sexual and asexual morphs would be more informative as an epitype in many cases. A proposal to regularize the working practice commended here, and also the converse situation where the sexual morph typified name is the earlier, will be made to the 2017 Shenzhen Congress.
2011 年废除同一真菌物种不同形态的单独命名，不可避免地将导致一些属中的许多名称发生变化。这里推荐的工作方法旨在最大限度地减少其中一类变化，即由于作者在描述同一物种的有性形态时使用无性形态的学名而引起的变化。我们认为，在这种情况下，为有性形态提出的名称应被视为新组合的正式错误，而不是新物种，因此应予以纠正。即使作者表示正在描述一个新物种并指定了一个模式，我们也认为这种解释是适用的。我们认为，这些手续是当时生效的规则要求的结果，因为作者承认正在描述一个已命名物种的形态，而不是报告一个尚未命名的新物种，而是被禁止进行这样的新组合，因此用相同的学名来命名新形态。如果为有性形态指定了具有有性形态的模式，根据这种解释，该模式不再具有命名地位，而是基准名的模式。指示为模式的有性形态的材料，可作为副模式进行指定，尽管在许多情况下，具有有性和无性形态的现代测序样本作为副模式更具信息性。我们将向 2017 年深圳大会提出一项建议，以规范这里推荐的工作方法，以及相反的情况，即有性形态的典型名称更早。
