Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi - 20.

Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi - 20.

May, Tom W;
IMA fungus 2017 Vol. 8 pp. 189-203
242
may2017reportima

Abstract

Ratification of appointment of repositories by the International Mycological Congress is reported. The following two family names are recommended for conservation: against ; and the teleomorph-typified against the anamorph-typified . The following family name is not recommended for conservation: against . The following 10 generic names are recommended for conservation: the teleomorph-typified name against the conserved anamorph-typified name ; Sorokīn () against Roussel (); , nom. cons., against an additional name, ; (Fr. : Fr.) P. Kumm. () against (Webb ex Spach) Fourr. () with a conserved type; against ; with a conserved type; with a conserved type; with that spelling; with a conserved type; and against . Conservation of Freng. () against Sacc. () is not opposed. The following generic name is not recommended for conservation: with a conserved type. The proposal to conserve the generic name against was withdrawn. The following 17 species names are recommended for conservation: () against the sanctioned (); against ; () against and ; () against , , and ; with a conserved type; against (); Y. Nisik. & C. Miyake () against Brond. and ; () against ; Schrad. () against Lam. with a conserved type; () with that spelling; (, ) with a conserved type; () with a conserved type; against , and ; Durieu & Lév. against Saut.; with that spelling; with a conserved type; and with a conserved type. The following 22 species names (teleomorph-typified) are recommended for conservation against anamorph-typified names: against ; against ; against ; against ; against ; against ; against ; against ; against ; against ; against ; against ; against ; against ; against ; against ; against ; against ; against ; against ; against ; and against . The following two species names are not recommended for conservation: against ; and () against . It is recommended that the generic name and the species name not be rejected under Art. 56. The following two species names are recommended for rejection under Art. 56: () and . As a result of reference under Art. 53.5, it is recommended that the following two pairs of names are not to be treated as homonyms: De Not. and Planch.; and (Pers.) Bonord. and Sweet.

Citation

ID: 264372
Ref Key: may2017reportima
Use this key to autocite in SciMatic or Thesis Manager

References

Blockchain Verification

Account:
NFT Contract Address:
0x95644003c57E6F55A65596E3D9Eac6813e3566dA
Article ID:
264372
Unique Identifier:
10.5598/imafungus.2017.08.01.12
Network:
Scimatic Chain (ID: 481)
Loading...
Blockchain Readiness Checklist
Authors
Abstract
Journal Name
Year
Title
5/5
Creates 1,000,000 NFT tokens for this article
Token Features:
  • ERC-1155 Standard NFT
  • 1 Million Supply per Article
  • Transferable via MetaMask
  • Permanent Blockchain Record
Blockchain QR Code
Scan with Saymatik Web3.0 Wallet

Saymatik Web3.0 Wallet