Dear scientist interested in one name for genera in the Leotiomycetes,

Attached is a document with recommendations of generic names to use for competing names within the Leotiomycetes excluding the Erysiphales. Although we have made a recommendation here, these are certainly now final—just our best judgment. We would like input from the user community. Please let us know your preference for generic names, hopefully with some kind of rationale (or not). The generic names that have so far proven most controversial are listed below so add your thoughts.

Concerning the problem of not having enough data to decide, we would argue that decisions of some kind must be made. Plant pathologists want to know which name to use and we cannot let these issues remain undecided until all the molecular work is completed. Thus, we need to make a best judgment and move ahead.

The genera listed in the document are synonyms. Below are names that could go either way based on the few of us who have expressed opinions. Include your comments about the use of one generic name versus another name in this document, rather than in the manuscript. We will evaluate suggestions and re-write the manuscript to reflect them as best we can. Comments about wording should be made in the document with track changes on.

Genera about which your thoughts and rationale are needed although comments on others are welcomed as well:

1.Ascocalyx 1926 versus Bothrodiscus 1907 and Pycnocalyx 1916

2.Coryne 1816 versus Pirobasidium 1902 and Ascocoryne 1967

Some folks prefer Ascocoryne.

3.Crinula 1821 versus Holwaya 1889.

4.Diplocarpon 1912 vs. Entomosporium1856

Please note that Drepanopeziza is not congeneric with these genera and is restricted to species on Populus. The name for black spot of roses could be considered either in Entomosporium or Diplocarpon but not Drepanopeziza.

5.Gremmeniella 1969 over Brunchorstia 1891

This decision especially concerns the use of the name Gremmiella abietina vs. Brunchorstia pinea for the disease known as Scleroderris canker of pine.

6.Pyrenopeziza vs. Cylindrosporium

7.Xylogone vs. Scytalidium

Please note any other recommended generic names from the document with which you disagree.

If you know of any other potential generic connections in the Leotiomycetes, please let us know as well.

We will list those who express their opinions including acceptance of these recommendations in the Acknowledgements.

Thank you!

Amy Rossman

Keith Seifert

Peter Johnston

Jeff Stone

Ludmila Maranova

Nicolas VAN VOOREN, 08-02-2014 17:52

Re : Recommanded generic name for Leotiomyctes

About the generic name Coryne, I don't think this a problem to adopt it instead of Ascocoryne. I know many people that still use it, especially those who don't study Ascomycota intensively. And the two names are very close, so no problem to memorize!
This is my two cents...

Hans-Otto Baral, 08-02-2014 18:52

Re : Recommanded generic name for Leotiomycetes

I think likewise about Coryne. At least one change of genus and species epithet we would probably have then: 
Ascocoryne solitaria (Rehm 1891) will become Coryne albida (Berk. 1836).

Zotto

Walter Gams, 09-02-2014 09:33

Re : Recommanded generic name for Leotiomycetes

Just for information: The new ruling demands that the oldest name should prevail, no matter whether anamorphic or teleomorphic. Any deviation from this is possible if it is preferred and this will remain a matter of taste. Therefore people are invited to express their preference and the desired names can then be placed on a list where they will be protected.
Concerning Coryne: This question should be considered for the generic name together with the species epithet.  In my youth I learned the fungus as Coryne sarcoides, the name most attractive to me. But  the oldest name for the anamorph is Coryne dubia, while sarcoides is explicitly introduced for the teleomorph. Thus obviously a case for list-protection.

Hans-Otto Baral, 09-02-2014 10:06

Re : Recommanded generic name for Leotiomycetes

Dear Walter

I also considered this case, but I see in Index Fungorum that Tremella dubia Pers., listed as synonym of A. sarcoides, was published in 1800 and Lichen sarcoides Jacq. in 1781.

There is a Coryne dubia (Pers. 1797) Gray, which I consider as anamorph of A. sarcoides in my database, but IF not. Quite dubious what here is correct, in any case the epithet sarcoides seems to be the oldest.

The sentence below is incorrect in my opinion: Groves & Elliot created Ascocoryne because both Coryne and Pirobasidium refer to an anamorph. The diagnosis of the latter by Höhnel purely refers to an anamorph (as "P. sarcoides"), and he used Coryne for the teleomorph. Coryne is used by Gray 1821 only for the anamorph, as seen in the attach. The original Esenbeck (1816) I do not have.

From Leotiomycetes draft paper:
"The earlier monotypic genus Pirobasidium based on the same type species as Ascocoryne was overlooked by Grove & Wilson (1967) when they described Ascocoryne."

Zotto

• 

Bernard Declercq, 10-02-2014 11:01

Re : Recommanded generic name for Leotiomycetes

I can only congratulate the authors and advisers of the document with the recommandations presented and the according reasonings.
Most generic names of species currently collected would not change. Coryne is an exception, but the older ones among us were already familiar with that name when making their first steps in mycology.

Bernard