(3045) Proposal to conserve the name Fomitopsis against Daedalea and Caloporus (Basidiomycota: Polyporales: Fomitopsidaceae)

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F60077344%3A_____%2F24%3A00605357" target="_blank" >RIV/60077344:_____/24:00605357 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/tax.13249" target="_blank" >https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/tax.13249</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

(3045) Proposal to conserve the name Fomitopsis against Daedalea and Caloporus (Basidiomycota: Polyporales: Fomitopsidaceae)

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Recently, we revised the taxonomy of the brown-rot polypore family Fomitopsidaceae via seven- and three-gene datasets (Spirin & al. in Stud. Mycol. 107: 149–249. 2024). After considering different schemes for the reclassification of the family, we argued therein in favour of accepting three generic units only, i.e., the monotypic Anthoporia Karasiński & Niemelä (in Polish Bot. J. 61: 8. 2016), Antrodia P. Karst. (in Meddeland. Soc. Fauna Fl. Fenn. 5: 40. 1880) (as redefined by Runnel & al. in Mycologia 111: 871–883. 2019) and the Daedalea-Fomitopsis clade with 128 accepted species. For the latter, the oldest available generic name is Daedalea Pers. (Syn. Meth. Fung. 2: 499. 1801). However, adopting Daedalea would necessitate 100 new combinations under this generic name. Additionally, a species epithet change for at least 10 species would be necessary. This is especially undesirable for two well-known and industrially important wood-decayers, i.e., Fomitopsis pinicola (Sw.) P. Karst. (in Meddeland. Soc. Fauna Fl. Fenn. 6: 9. 1881) and Piptoporus betulinus (Bull.) P. Karst. (l.c. 1881). By contrast, no new combinations will be needed if Fomitopsis P. Karst. (l.c. 1881) would be preferred over Daedalea, and only three rare species, Antrodia minuta Spirin (in Mycotaxon 101: 150. 2007), Daedalea africana Ryvarden & I. Johans. (Prelim. Polypore Fl. E. Africa: 304. 1980) and Trametes cystidiata I. Lindblad & Ryvarden (in Mycotaxon 71: 353. 1999), would require new species epithets. The next name after Daedalea that has a priority over Fomitopsis is Caloporus P. Karst. (in Rev. Mycol. (Toulouse) 3(9): 18. 1881). Caloporus is not in active use and has been variably misinterpreted. Only one of the currently accepted species in Fomitopsidaceae, i.e., Poria incarnata Pers. (in Ann. Bot. (Usteri) 11: 30. 1794) (the generic type), has been combined in Caloporus, we therefore see even less advantage in putting this name into use than in the case of Daedalea. The next two simultaneously published names available for the Daedalea-Fomitopsis clade are Fomitopsis and Piptoporus P. Karst. (l.c. 1881). The latter has been treated as a synonym of Fomitopsis since the study of Han & al. (in Fungal Diversity 80: 359. 2016). This viewpoint was followed in all subsequent studies of brown-rot polypores and we see no good grounds to disagree with it. Fomitopsis was first typified on F. pinicola by Murrill (in J. Mycol. 9: 94, 99. 1903), who equated it with F. ungulatus Batsch. Murrill, however, adopted a largely mechanical method of type selection (Art. 10.5–10.7 and Art. 10 Ex. 9 of the ICN, Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) that may be superseded unless later affirmed by an author or authors not using such a method. The selection of F. pinicola was affirmed by Bondartsev & Singer (in Ann. Mycol. 39: 55. 1941).nAdditionally, the family name Fomitopsidaceae is widely used in the current taxonomy of the Polyporales, and it is therefore logical to maintain the name Fomitopsis for the largest genus of this family.

Název v anglickém jazyce

(3045) Proposal to conserve the name Fomitopsis against Daedalea and Caloporus (Basidiomycota: Polyporales: Fomitopsidaceae)

Popis výsledku anglicky

Recently, we revised the taxonomy of the brown-rot polypore family Fomitopsidaceae via seven- and three-gene datasets (Spirin & al. in Stud. Mycol. 107: 149–249. 2024). After considering different schemes for the reclassification of the family, we argued therein in favour of accepting three generic units only, i.e., the monotypic Anthoporia Karasiński & Niemelä (in Polish Bot. J. 61: 8. 2016), Antrodia P. Karst. (in Meddeland. Soc. Fauna Fl. Fenn. 5: 40. 1880) (as redefined by Runnel & al. in Mycologia 111: 871–883. 2019) and the Daedalea-Fomitopsis clade with 128 accepted species. For the latter, the oldest available generic name is Daedalea Pers. (Syn. Meth. Fung. 2: 499. 1801). However, adopting Daedalea would necessitate 100 new combinations under this generic name. Additionally, a species epithet change for at least 10 species would be necessary. This is especially undesirable for two well-known and industrially important wood-decayers, i.e., Fomitopsis pinicola (Sw.) P. Karst. (in Meddeland. Soc. Fauna Fl. Fenn. 6: 9. 1881) and Piptoporus betulinus (Bull.) P. Karst. (l.c. 1881). By contrast, no new combinations will be needed if Fomitopsis P. Karst. (l.c. 1881) would be preferred over Daedalea, and only three rare species, Antrodia minuta Spirin (in Mycotaxon 101: 150. 2007), Daedalea africana Ryvarden & I. Johans. (Prelim. Polypore Fl. E. Africa: 304. 1980) and Trametes cystidiata I. Lindblad & Ryvarden (in Mycotaxon 71: 353. 1999), would require new species epithets. The next name after Daedalea that has a priority over Fomitopsis is Caloporus P. Karst. (in Rev. Mycol. (Toulouse) 3(9): 18. 1881). Caloporus is not in active use and has been variably misinterpreted. Only one of the currently accepted species in Fomitopsidaceae, i.e., Poria incarnata Pers. (in Ann. Bot. (Usteri) 11: 30. 1794) (the generic type), has been combined in Caloporus, we therefore see even less advantage in putting this name into use than in the case of Daedalea. The next two simultaneously published names available for the Daedalea-Fomitopsis clade are Fomitopsis and Piptoporus P. Karst. (l.c. 1881). The latter has been treated as a synonym of Fomitopsis since the study of Han & al. (in Fungal Diversity 80: 359. 2016). This viewpoint was followed in all subsequent studies of brown-rot polypores and we see no good grounds to disagree with it. Fomitopsis was first typified on F. pinicola by Murrill (in J. Mycol. 9: 94, 99. 1903), who equated it with F. ungulatus Batsch. Murrill, however, adopted a largely mechanical method of type selection (Art. 10.5–10.7 and Art. 10 Ex. 9 of the ICN, Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) that may be superseded unless later affirmed by an author or authors not using such a method. The selection of F. pinicola was affirmed by Bondartsev & Singer (in Ann. Mycol. 39: 55. 1941).nAdditionally, the family name Fomitopsidaceae is widely used in the current taxonomy of the Polyporales, and it is therefore logical to maintain the name Fomitopsis for the largest genus of this family.

Druh

O - Ostatní výsledky

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

10612 - Mycology

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2024

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů