Dear Marc Henri,

Please forward this message to J-L Nottéghem-

We all agree that widely used names should not be changed before careful evaluation and thorough discussion, and that is why we are here discussing this issue in the past several months. 

The reason that Magnaporthe is not the right generic name for the rice blast fungus is not because of the new nomenclature, but because recent analysis based on DNA sequences, morphological, and ecological characters all  indicate that the rice blast fungus is different from the true Magnaporthe--the rice stem rot fungus (M. salvinii).  Unless we conserve Magnaporthe for the rice blast fungus, a name change is needed.

Regarding the change of fungal nomenclature-



There are over one million catalogued species on earth, among which 70,000 are fungi, with many more yet to be discovered or described.  Due to the lack of molecular genetic  tools to make connection between asexual and sexual forms, fungi were allowed to be given more than one names (dual nomenclature).  Now PCR and sequencing enable us to link all forms of a species.  Although the transition is difficult, for the stability in longer term, One Fungus = One Name was adopted in Melbourne Code and there is no way back. Moving to one scientific name for each species of fungus aligns the fungi with the other groups of organisms governed by codes of nomenclature including the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria. For no other group of organisms has two scientific names for one species been allowed except for the fossils and with the Melbourne Code that changed as well.

Regards,

Ning

Ning Zhang, Ph.D
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Plant Biology and Pathology
Dept. of Biochemistry and Microbiology
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
59 Dudley Road, Foran Hall 201
New Brunswick, NJ  08901

phone: (848)932-6348
zhang@aesop.rutgers.edu
http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~plantbiopath/faculty/zhang/zhang.htm
http://dbm.rutgers.edu/profile.php?PID=16

On Sep 25, 2013, at 3:53 AM, mh lebrun <marc-henri.lebrun@versailles.inra.fr> wrote:

Dear Marc Henri, I heard about changing /Magnaporthe oryzae/ name. Can you  please forward my comments to the community discussing about coming back to "/Pyricularia/". Sincerely yours J-L Nottéghem.

"Taxonomists are a group of scientists rarely understood by the rest of the scientific community but their decisions have consequences for a much larger community. Names changes have consequences for many people who does not understand the reasons for changing names too often. For many people the rules are not clear and change too often...

When a species name changes, the question is when will be the next change, is it useful to use the new name???In the case of rice blast,  it was first named //Pyricularia oryzae//, then it has ben changed and adopted for more than 25 years as /Magnaporthe oryzae/,  by pathologists but also by agronomists, breeders and a large communauty of people working  on  either Magnaporthe, or rice or both. Everybody understood that there are different names for anamorph and telomorph, and this difference makes sens, supressing this rule will be disturbing for many people... Going back to the very old story of //Pyricularia //have no interest excepte for pure taxonomists who does not consider the trouble they made to non taxonomists....

Sincerely supporting conserving Magnaporthe for the sake of the rice blast community from the point of view of a long standing researcher both in the field and the lab (50 years)

Nottéghem J.L."

Jean Loup notteghem <notteghe@supagro.inra.fr>
professeur émérite
Montpellier SupAgro