I agree with your summary of the whole discussion. It's very much clear and looking forward approach. Also, thanks for your concern towards my feelings. I am enjoying the discussion very much.
To me, the issue between Pyricularia and Magnaporthe is not complicated. The issue was there initially because of the taxonomic rule preferring the name of sexual stage. So, people started using Magnaporthe as well. That was going fine, both the names side by side. Now, the 'one fungus, one name' initiative has brought back the issue again. As I understand the problem is not the 'taxonomic rule' now (as the rice blast community can propose an appropriate name with scientific reasons and get approval from the taxonomic committee), but what the name should be, Pyricularia or Magnaporthe?
The 'Pyricularia' is the genus name which has been in existence for over 133 years since P.A. Saccardo first described it in 1880. The 'Magnaporthe' is the genus name described in 1972 by R.A. Krause and R.K. Webster. So, Pyricularia is 92 years older than Magnaporthe.
Comparing these two names with each other for their appropriateness at the present context, Pyricularia does not have any controversy. The name perfectly matches with the 'pyriform' conidium, the one and only infective stage of the fungus. And it holds the greatest significance as the name has been used for the rice blast fungus. The fungus is so important because it causes the destructive disease in rice crop, the crop on which one fifth of the world population (more than a billion people) depend for their livelihoods. That was the only reason why scientists have been receiving huge funds to work on the fungus and they have been successful to develop it as a model plant pathogen as well. That's the best part of it and they deserve big congratulations. It's not that the scientists have been successful because they use the name Magnaporthe instead of Pyricularia.
Unlike Pyricularia, Magnaporthe is not free from controversy. Magnaporthe spores have been produced in laboratories and yet to found in nature. Its role in disease cycle has not been established yet. Also, the latest phylogenetic findings have clearly shown that Magnaporthe oryzae is distantly related with Magnaporthe salvinni, which was first described as the first type species of Magnaporthe by Krause and Webster in 1972. So, there is now question over the Magnaporthe as the name of rice blast fungus.
Now, if we are going to stick on 'one fungus, one name' initiative the best option is 'Pyricularia'. That should be used as the 'whole' name for rice blast fungus, both asexual and sexual stages. That will erase all the confusion. I know that is not so easy as we are divided.
Another option is - let's forget about 'one fungus, one name'. Keep both the names as anamorph and teleomorph states. No problem, even if the teleomorph state gets new name based on phylogenetic results. And we know for sure that the anamorph name is not going to change. I believe the rules can be exempted for exceptional cases like rice blast, and even the rule can be changed, if necessary.
There is one thing I would like to note. In the e-mail message posted by Dr. Lebrun on Sept. 13, he says that,
The one name one fungus initiative only want to avoid two names for the same >species but prefer the sexual stage name when it exists.
According to Wingfield et al. (Mol. Plant Pathol. 13:604-613. 2012), however,
"Based on the accepted recommendations, all legitimate fungal names are now treated equally for the purposes of establishing priority, essentially meaning that anamorphic genera compete with teleomorph genera based on priority, I.e., precedence by date [thus Trichoderma (1794) not Hypocrea (1825), Alternaria (1817) not Lewia (1986), Cladosporium (1816) not Davidiella (2003), Fusarium (1809) not Gibberella (1877), Sphaceloma (1874) not Elsinoe (1900), Diaporthe (1870) not Phomopsis (1905), Phyllosticta (1818) not Guignardia (1892・, etc.]. Exceptions (younger, more commonly used genera) for conservation would, however, be considered by the Committee........￣.
So, If Magnaporthe is adopted as a generic name for the blast fungi, it should be an exception.
Regards,
********************************** Yukio TOSA Graduate School of Agricultural Science Kobe University Nada, Kobe 657-8501, JAPAN TEL: 078-803-6544/6540 **********************************
I can also quote Wingfield "Exceptions (younger, more COMMONLY used genera) for conservation would be considered by the Committee"
The term commonly used genera I think perfectly apply to our case
Magnaporthe has been used by the whole rice blast community in the past 25 years as already discussed in many mails: 1235 publications in Pubmed after the first switch in 1986 to Magnaporthe (first publication in pubmed with Magnaporthe grisea as name in the title) Even yourself have published papers mostly using Magnaporthe since 2001 All your papers for 1999-2001 are under the name Pyricularia (3 papers, PubMed). After 2001, only 4 papers are under the name Pyricularia while 32 are under the name Magnaporthe.
The same apply to Barbara Valent whose papers only use Magnaporthe as species name since 1986 (I have not found any of her papers using the name Pyricularia in Pubmed). Furthermore, she has been essential in having the community to change from Pyricularia to Magnaporthe at this time (therefore I do not understand her emotion about Pyricularia).
This is true for many others scientists including myself that have published his first papers using Pyricularia (2 in Pubmed) and switched to Magnaporthe (32 papers) in 1997 (later than B Valent) for ever since. I should also reveal that B Valent was the one that convince me to use Magnaporthe during my post-doctoral period in her lab in 1991-2.
Therefore, I really think that Magnaporthe has been fully adopted by the rice blast community (including B Valent and Y Tosa). Since 1986. It has been widely used in : publications, reports, grant proposals, quarantine descriptions, web sites, sequence databases, etc. and as such MERITS to be conserved as COMMONLY USED GENERA NAME. All the best
Pedro Crous wrote on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 07:20:56 +0000
Although I like Pyricularia, MH may have a point. I just checked Google Scholar, 25 000 hits for Pyricularia, but 50 000 hits for Magnaporthe. I realize that Google scholar is not a good index, but it does give some kind of indication of the use of a name in common press (incl. books).
The common name of the disease will remain the same, irrespective of what gets decided. Whichever option is taken for the generic name, one will still be able to refer to the Pyricularia morph, or if the other scenario is taken, the Magnaporthe morph. These names will remain in common use. But for trade, quarantine, and scientific literature, it would be good if one name gets used in the end to ensure that there is consistency and clarity in communication at various levels of decision making. For the Dothistroma needle blight pathogen (red band disease of pines), for instance, up to four different names are used on the quarantine lists in various countries. However, they are in fact all referring to the same fungus (though many quarantine officers will not realize this at first glance). For these and several other reasons, we need to reach consensus on the choice of the generic name.
My name is Takayuki Aoki. Although I am working on Fusarium but not on rice blast fungus, I made one vote to Pyricularia because it was quite an important fungus for Japanese Phytopathology and Agriculture. However, as I wrote in the Ning's Blog page before (correctly, Ning pasted my E-mail to the page), I am considering that the rice blast problem should be solved by rice blast workers themselves. I was watching carefully and interestingly the sequence of the discussion and I feel it is quite important and good opportunities that may lead to a fruitful future of rice blast studies.
I have been keeping my quite silent attitude and watching calmly the discussion, but I would like to send my own consideration (or my criticism) on the problem.
There are probably many people considering that they are forced to unify the teleomorphic and anamorphic names of the rice blast fungus, because of the recent change of the Botanical Nomenclature, by the alteration of Article 59 of ICNafp; i.e., because of the abandonment of so-called dual naming system of fungi, we should select either Magnaporthe or Pyricularia for the rice blast fungus.... I am considering somewhat differently and it is a paradoxical consideration from the current situation. I think the problem is of somewhat different issues from the current nomenclatural unification of fungal scientific names.
When we consider that we stil have the unchanged Article 59 of the Botanical Nomenclature as in the past code, what may happen with the name of the rice blast fungus? Could we keep continuously usage of both Magnaporthe grisea (oryzae) and Pyricularia grisea (oryzae) for the species? Phylogenetically the genus Magnaporthe in the broad sense had better be divided into plural genera, i.e., a group with the rice blast fungus and another group with Magnaporthe salvini, etc.
Under a possible condition that we keep the old, unchanged Article 59 to guarantee us to use dual nomenclature of fungi (applying teleomorphic and anamorphic names for an identical fungus), how it will be, when we would like to divide the genus Magnaporthe? Which name will be kept on the rice blast fungus?
In this case, we should consider on the possible name change of the rice blast fungus, too.
My consideration is that the current argument may also based on the structure of the genus Magnaporthe, i.e., the type species of Magnaporthe is not the rice blast fungus. When the type species of both genera, Magnaporthe and Pyricularia are identical, the choice of the name will be rather arbitrary. When we call the rice blast fungus as Magnaporthe continuously, we absolutely require "switching or replacement of its type species" to the rice blast fungus, even if under the past Botanical Code. It is not a newly happened problem because of the change of the code, but a structural one coming out from its own basis.
I think the rice blast workers are requested to face and consider to solve the problem for a good future, irrespective of the current requirement to select one name to unify its scientific names according to the new Botanical Code.
It would possibly be good to consider the problem separately from the code.
I am expecting fruitful discussion on this theme to be able to arrive at a satisfactory answer for the community. An impartial voting system may solve a part of the problem.
I will return to my silent attitude, again.
With best wishes,
Takayuki
________________________________
Dr. Takayuki AOKI, Mycologist, Unit Leader
Classification and Evaluation Research Unit (responsible for Microorganisms Section of the NIAS Genebank) Genetic Resources Center (MAFF) National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences 2-1-2 Kannondai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8602 JAPAN
I appreciate all comments and useful discussions on this topic. I am ok with either Magnaporthe or Pyricularia. However, I prefer Magnaporthe over Pyricularia.
Best regards,
Yulin
Yulin Jia Ph.D. Research Plant Molecular Pathologist USDA-ARS Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center Stuttgart, AR 72160, USA Tel: 870 672 9300 ext: 229 Email: yulin.jia@ars.usda.gov http://ars.usda.gov/spa/dbnrrc/mpp University of Arkansas http://plantpathology.uark.edu/2245.php http://www.plantpoweredproduction.com/faculty/yulin-jia/ http://cemb.uark.edu/cembfaculty.html
For a number of reasons, I am convinced that the name that will result in the most stability for this group of fungi is Pyricularia.
1. Pyricularia is a large genus of plant pathogens that occur on a number of hosts. At present there are 75 names placed in Pyricularia. If Magnaporthe were conserved with a different type species, all of the other species in Pyricularia would have to be changed to Magnaporthe. In my view this would be much more disruptive than returning to the name used previously, Pyricularia oryzae.
2. The type species of Magnaporthe, M. salvinii, is not congeneric with P. oryzae; they are not even sister taxa but actually somewhat distantly related. See Zhuang et al. 2011. The name Magnaporthe salvinii would have to be changed as well.
3. The high number of required name changes might prevent the Committee on the Nomenclature of Fungi from accepting a proposal to conserve the name Magnaporthe with a new type species. This is the official body that must recommend a conservation proposal for acceptance that is then voted on by all participants at the nomenclature session at the International Botanical Congress.
4. From travelling around the world speaking with plant pathologists, I know that they know the rice blast fungus and related species as Pyricularia. (But, to be honest, most of them are still using P. grisea.)
I have been monitoring your discussion of the past eight days with a fair amount of interest, and thought that perhaps a little nomenclatural clarification (based on the Code of International Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants) might be in order. Unfortunately I don’t have time at the present to go into more depth. I have included below parts of the Code (in black type) that may answer some of your questions. Regarding the conservation process, the bold portion should appear in red type.
The generic name is tied to its type species. The Code notes:
10.1. The type of a name of a genus or of any subdivision of a genus is the type of a name of a species (except as provided by Art. 10.4 ).
10.2. If in the protologue of a name of a genus or of any subdivision of a genus the holotype or lectotype of one or more previously or simultaneously published species name(s) is definitely included (see Art. 10.3 ), the type must be chosen from among these types ....
10.4. By and only by conservation (Art. 14.9 ), the type of a name of a genus may be a specimen or illustration, preferably used by the author in the preparation of the protologue, other than the type of a name of an included species.
10.5. The author who first designates (Art. 7.9 and 7.10 ) a type of a name of a genus or subdivision of a genus must be followed, but the choice may be superseded if (a) it can be shown that it is in serious conflict with the protologue (or with the sanctioning treatment in the case of names typified from the sanctioning work, Art. 10.2(b) ), or (b) that it was based on a largely mechanical method of selection. Magnaporthe was established by Krause & Webster in 1972, who cited Leptoshaeria salvinii Catt. (1876) as type. According to 10.5, their designation MUST BE FOLLOWED. If for some reason the type species is found to be synonymous with another species/taxon and transferred to the genus of the synonym [in Barbara’s example, that would be Nakataea], the genus name Magnaporthe would cease to exist, regardless of the number of species contained within it, unless the type species is changed through conservation.
Article 14 dealing with conservation follows. This may be a bit difficult at first, so you’ll probably have to read through the text several times before it begins to make sense. I have not taken the time to review the nomenclatural trails pertinent to the Magnaporthe/Pyricularia discussion, so you should take the time to browse through the entire Code to see what you are dealing with nomenclaturally. (I have not copied the ‘new’ Article 59 out for you, but it would be good to read through it and its recommendations and examples as they will explain how we’ve reached this fix to begin with. The Code is available to everyone at www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php
CHAPTER II. Status, typification, and priority of names SECTION 4. Limitation of the principle of priority
Article 14
14.1. In order to avoid disadvantageous nomenclatural changes entailed by the strict application of the rules, and especially of the principle of priority in starting from the dates given in Art. 13 , this Code provides, in App. II–IV, lists of names of families, genera, and species that are conserved (nomina conservanda) (see Rec. 50E.1 ). Conserved names are legitimate even though initially they may have been illegitimate. The name of a subdivision of a genus or of an infraspecific taxon may be conserved with a conserved type and listed in App. III and IV, respectively, when it is the basionym of a name of a genus or species that could not continue to be used in its current sense without conservation. 14.2. Conservation aims at retention of those names that best serve stability of nomenclature. 14.3. The application of both conserved and rejected names is determined by nomenclatural types. The type of the species name cited as the type of a conserved generic name may, if desirable, be conserved and listed in App. III. 14.4. A conserved name of a family or genus is conserved against all other names in the same rank based on the same type (homotypic, i.e. nomenclatural, synonyms, which are to be rejected) whether or not these are cited in the corresponding list as rejected names, and against those names based on different types (heterotypic, i.e. taxonomic, synonyms) that are listed as rejected1 . A conserved name of a species is conserved against all names listed as rejected, and against all combinations based on the rejected names. (Notes removed as not pertinent to the current discussion) 14.5. When a conserved name competes with one or more names based on different types and against which it is not explicitly conserved, the earliest of the competing names is adopted in accordance with Art. 11 , except for the conserved family names listed in App. IIB, which are conserved against unlisted names. Ex. 2. If Mahonia Nutt. (1818) is united with Berberis L. (1753), the combined genus will bear the prior name Berberis, although Mahonia is conserved and Berberis is not. Ex. 3. Nasturtium R. Br. (1812) was conserved only against the homonym Nasturtium Mill. (1754) and the homotypic (nomenclatural) synonym Cardaminum Moench (1794); consequently if reunited with Rorippa Scop. (1760) it must bear the name Rorippa. Ex. 4. Combretaceae R. Br. (1810) is conserved against the unlisted earlier heterotypic name Terminaliaceae J. St.-Hil. (Expos. Fam. Nat. 1: 178. 1805).
14.6. When a name of a taxon has been conserved against an earlier heterotypic synonym, the latter is to be restored, subject to Art. 11 , if it is considered the name of a taxon at the same rank distinct from that of the conserved name. Ex. 5. The generic name Luzuriaga Ruiz & Pav. (1802) is conserved against the earlier names Enargea Banks ex Gaertn. (1788) and Callixene Comm. ex Juss. (1789). If, however, Enargea is considered to be a separate genus, the name Enargea is retained for it. Ex. 6. To preserve the name Roystonea regia (Kunth) O. F. Cook (1900), its basionym Oreodoxa regia Kunth (1816) is conserved against Palma elata W. Bartram (1791). However, the name R. elata (W. Bartram) F. Harper (1946) can be used for a species distinct from R. regia. 14.7. A rejected name, or a combination based on a rejected name, may not be restored for a taxon that includes the type of the corresponding conserved name. Ex. 7. Enallagma Baill. (1888) is conserved against Dendrosicus Raf. (1838), but not against Amphitecna Miers (1868); if Enallagma, Dendrosicus, and Amphitecna are united, the combined genus must bear the name Amphitecna, although the latter is not explicitly conserved against Dendrosicus. 14.8. The listed type and spelling of a conserved name (evident misspellings excepted) may only be changed by the procedure outlined in Art. 14.12 . Ex. 8. Bullock & Killick (in Taxon 6: 239. 1957) published a proposal that the listed type of Plectranthus L’Hér. be changed from P. punctatus (L. f.) L’Hér. to P. fruticosus L’Hér. This proposal was approved by the appropriate committees and by an International Botanical Congress. 14.9. A name may be conserved with a different type from that designated by the author or determined by application of the Code (see also Art. 10.4 ). Such a name may be conserved either from its place of valid publication (even though the type may not then have been included in the named taxon) or from a later publication by an author who did include the type as conserved. In the latter case the original name and the name as conserved are treated as if they were homonyms (Art. 53 ), whether or not the name as conserved was accompanied by a description or diagnosis of the taxon named. Ex. 9. Bromus sterilis L. (1753) has been conserved from its place of valid publication even though its conserved type, a specimen (Hubbard 9045, E) collected in 1932, was not originally included in Linnaeus’s species. Ex. 10. Protea L. (1753) did not include the conserved type of the generic name, P. cynaroides (L.) L. (1771), which in 1753 was placed in the genus Leucadendron. Protea was therefore conserved from the 1771 publication, and Protea L. (1771), although not intended to be a new generic name and still including the original type elements, is treated as if it were a validly published homonym of Protea L. (1753).
14.10. A conserved name, with any corresponding autonym, is conserved against all earlier homonyms. An earlier homonym of a conserved name is not made illegitimate by that conservation but is unavailable for use; if not otherwise illegitimate, it may serve as basionym of another name or combination based on the same type (see also Art. 55.3 ). Ex. 11. The generic name Smithia Aiton (1789), conserved against Damapana Adans. (1763), is conserved automatically against the earlier homonym Smithia Scop. (1777) – Blumea DC. (1833) is conserved automatically against Blumea Rchb. (1828–1829), although the latter name is not listed alongside the former in App. III. 14.11. A name may be conserved in order to preserve a particular spelling or gender. A name so conserved is to be attributed without change of date to the author who validly published it, not to an author who later introduced the conserved spelling or gender. Ex. 12. The spelling Rhodymenia, used by Montagne (1839), has been conserved against the original spelling Rhodomenia, used by Greville (1830). The name is to be cited as Rhodymenia Grev. (1830). Note 3. The date upon which a name was conserved does not affect its priority (Art. 11 ), which is determined only on the basis of the date of its valid publication (Art. 32 –45 ; but see Art. 14.9 and 14.15 ). 14.12. The lists of conserved names will remain permanently open for additions and changes. Any proposal of an additional name must be accompanied by a detailed statement of the cases both for and against conservation. Such proposals must be submitted to the General Committee (see Div. III ), which will refer them for examination to the committees for the various taxonomic groups (see also Art. 34.1 and 56.2 ). 14.13. In the interest of nomenclatural stability, for organisms treated as fungi (including lichenicolous fungi, but excluding lichen-forming fungi and those fungi traditionally associated with them taxonomically, e.g. Mycocaliciaceae), lists of names may be submitted to the General Committee, which will refer them to the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi (see Div. III ) for examination by subcommittees established by that Committee in consultation with the General Committee and appropriate international bodies. Accepted names on these lists, which become Appendices of the Code once reviewed and approved by the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi and the General Committee, are to be listed with their types together with those competing synonyms (including sanctioned names) against which they are treated as conserved (see also Art. 56.3 ). 14.14. Entries of conserved names may not be deleted. Ex. 13. Alternaria “Nees ex Wallr. (1833)” was conserved against Macrosporium Fr. (1832) in the Seattle Code (1972), as Fries’s name had been used in the then starting-point work for fungi. Following the abolition of later starting-point dates for fungi at the Sydney Congress in 1981 and in the Sydney Code (1983), and the recognition that Nees’s name had been accepted by Fries in the introduction to the sanctioning work (Syst. Mycol. 1: xlvi. 1821), conservation became unnecessary. As the entry cannot be deleted, Alternaria Nees (1816–1817) continues to be listed in App. III, but without a corresponding rejected name. 14.15. The places of publication cited for conserved names of families in App. IIB are treated as correct in all circumstances and consequently are not to be changed, except under the provisions of Art. 14.12 , even when otherwise such a name would not be validly published or when it is a later isonym. 14.16. When a proposal for the conservation of a name has been approved by the General Committee after study by the Committee for the taxonomic group concerned, retention of that name is authorized subject to the decision of a later International Botanical Congress (see also Art. 34.2 and 56.4 ).
But note: we hope to have the controversial problems voted on next year in Bangkok at IMC10.
Remember — taxonomy and nomenclature are two different things. Taxonomy follows science, nomenclature its ‘rule book’ (The Code). Don’t confuse the two!
Have fun!
Warm regards,
Lorelei
Lorelei Norvell, Secretary Nomenclature Committee for Fungi
Dr. Lorelei L Norvell Secretary, IBC Nomenclature Committee for Fungi Pacific Northwest Mycology Service & Mycotaxon llnorvell@pnw-ms.com [editor@mycotaxon.com] 6720 NW Skyline Boulevard Portland, OR 97229-1309 USA
Dr. Amy Rossman's contribution in the discussion has made things more clear though she has reservation regarding 'oryzae' and 'grisea'. Thanks to Dr. Rossman. Let me comment first on the question put by Dr. Jin-Rong Xu to Dr. Rossman (sorry, I am not speaking on behalf of Dr. Rossman). Though we are discussing specifically about the rice blast fungus, not the entire Pyricularia genus, that will certainly have an impact on the entire Pyricularia genus. A system for adopting latin name cannot be different from one user (rice blast workers) to another (non-rice blast workers).
There has been some emphasis on the votes from the 6th IRBC. The 6th IRBC was an event where some 140 rice blast researchers from 22 countries (only 91 voted) attended and shared their findings. Majority of them were young researchers and students working on molecular aspects of the fungus, who know very little or even nothing about the name Pyricularia. So far, the 'Rice Blast Genetics Policy Committee' is concerned, Dr. Barbara Valent is right that most of the rice blast researchers around the world are not aware of the Committee. Many rice blast workers do not know who formed it and when it was formed; do not know about its composition, how people are selected for it, what are the terms of references etc? By saying this, I am not disregarding the votes from the 6th IRBC; the point here is that the discussion has gone beyond the IRBC and the voting (whatever format we are using now) is being done internationally. So, the IRBC voting will have no meaning here. If we had wanted the IRBC votes as the final votes from the rice blast community we should have stopped the voting process right there (the last day of the IRBC). It didn't happen that way. One more thing, all the people who have voted at the IRBC meeting must have voted in the on-going internet voting as well. So, their votes are included anyway.
Whatever we call it, our 'model fungus' or our 'trade mark' or 'brand name', the fact is that it's the 'rice blast fungus'. (No one has said yet I don't care the disease). Rice blast is occurring in the rice fields. Rice breeders, rice pathologists and extension workers (and may not be necessary to mention millions of farmers) are fighting the disease in more than 100 countries. (I am not saying here the laboratory scientists do not have role in the disease management. They have great role. I loved the theme of the 6th IRBC - "Translation from Genomics to Disease Management".).
I very much appreciate the contribution made by Dr. Lorelei Norvell in the on-going discussion. Dr. Norvell has reminded so thoughtfully that taxonomy and nomenclature are two different things. So, whichever name (Pyricularia or Magnaporthe?) fits well for rice blast fungus, from both the science and rule point of view, that should be the final one. I don't think, it should be the case of giving 'consideration' because it's a model fungus and finding 'space' (which Dr. Barbara hinted in her last e-mail, and I don't think so). Rice blast fungus is an organism, it's not man-made. So, it can be not treated as a patented product.
At last but not least, knowledge and facts which were thought to be correct earlier are not necessarily should remain the same. A scientist should change her/his stand when new knowledge and facts are emerged. That is science. As Dr. MH Lebrun revealed in one of his e-mails that Dr. Barbara Valent was the one who had convinced him to use Magnaporthe in 1991-92 when he was doing post-doc in the latter's lab. Now new facts are there so Dr. Valent changed her mind. Dr. Lebrun also wrote to Dr. Yokio Tosa mentioning that Dr. Tosa and Dr. Valent themselves are using Magnaporthe in their publications. As I think, Dr. Valent is the most senior figure in the today's rice blast community and she is somehow obliged to follow the rule. I take it as her unbiased nature to scientific community. This is my personal view. Now, she has realized that Pyricularia is the appropriate name and she is going for that. Once it is decided by the authority she would follow it, no matter whether it is Pyricularia or Magnaporthe, but others may not. (Sorry, I am not speaking on behalf of Dr. Valent. It's just my view).
I am a bit supicious about the statement "MUST BE FOLLOWED". Rules have been changing since the last 20 years. What guarantee do we have that they will not change again? in additon, this is very interesting to see that some of the people who are using the argument of following the rules now (I am not talking about Lorelei), have not followed the rules during the past 25 years and kept using Pyricularia when Magnaporthe was the official name.
Again, the point is what name does the rice blast community wants. Then we will do the required changes because whatever our choice their will be changes for some species.
Have a good day Didier
Le 21/09/2013 01:13, Lorelei Norvell a écrit :
On 9/20/13 12:58 PM, Barbara Valent wrote:
Dear Ning, As I understand according to your recent paper (Luo and Zhang, Mycologia 2013, 105:1019-1029), M. poae, M. rhizophila, and M. incrustans are now suggested to be 'Magnaporthiopsis.' It is also suggested that M. salvinii becomes Nakataea oryzae. I realize that you also suggest that M. oryzae becomes Pyricularia oryzae. But doesn't this all mean that 'Magnaporthe' would be available for the rice blast fungus? Please clarify the current status of the name Magnaporthe for non-taxonomists like me! Also, how difficult is it to change the type species? What actual work is involved? Thank you for your insight and all of your effort on behalf of our community. Best wishes, Barbara
I think the comment about rules that "must be followed" stems from a nomenclatural point of view. At the end of the day, plant pathologists will use the name they want to use. A good example is my good colleague Pierre de Wit, who still continues to work on "Cladosporium" fulvum, regardless. However, we need to strive for stability by ending up with one genus name for this clade, which will be the genus name to be placed on the list of protected names. Having said that, Amy Rossman raised some very important issues, and to change the name of a well established genus for one species, may be fighting an uphill battle, as clearly there is a large Pyricularia user community that do not work on rice blast disease.
The Pyricularia community beside Magnaporthe/Pyricularia oryzae/grisea is limited to very few groups and really few papers (bibliography will follow today)
If we speak of use there is no possible comparison between the use of Magnaporthe grisea/oryzae by a large community and the use of Pyricularia outside of Pyricularia oryzae/grisea
Furthermore, you know as I that the Pyricularia genus is as polyphyletic as the old Magnaporthe genus (Zhang et al 2013) both for molecular taxonomy criteria and morphological criteria (the same situation as old Magnporthe genus)
So what to do in such a case, should we eliminate Pyricularia as a genus since it is polyphyletic as proposed for the old Magnaporthe genus ?
The fact that a genus is polyphyletic has no being on this nomenclature issue. All that matters is where the type species of a genus belongs and what species are truly related to i.e. congeneric with that type species. A type species and its congeneric species must have the same generic name. These are some very basic ideas that relate to phylogeny and nomenclature.
I am sorry to say that the polyphyletic nature of old Magnaporthe genus was the argument to define new genera in these related clades (see Zhang et al 2013)
by nature in polyphyletic genera, only one clade has the type species while the other clades do not have it
with regard to the Old Magnaporthe genus you had clades unrelated to the type species clade with the same genus name gathering also species with other genus name
this is exactly the situation found for the Pyricularia genus
the parallel is strinking, so the same rules should apply don't you think so ?
The type of Magnaporthe is the rice stem rot fungus, which is not congeneric with the rice blast fungus. The type of Pyricularia is P. grisea, which is close to the rice blast fungus.
What we do not know-
Pyricularia has more than 70 species. We still are not clear on Pyricularia's phylogeny due to lack of multi-gene sequence data for many Pyricularia species. If we conserve Magnaporthe for the rice blast fungus, where to delimit the genus would be a big issue. My lab and Izumi's group etc. are busy generating more sequence data, which will help us better understand these species' relationships.
As Lorelei said, hope this will be voted in Bangkok IMC10 next August but if needed, we can wait till the next International Botanical Congress (2017).
I copy Takayuki's message regarding the nomenclature process for conserving Magnaporthe- ----------- Dear Ning,
I think that Nakataea oryzae instead of Magnaporthe salvinii is a great finding. Segregation of poae, rhizophila and incrustans to a new genus Magnaporthiopsis is also clear-cut treatment. I was actually interested in it. It is a good taxonomic consideration but not of nomenclatural issue, so I consider. When your consideration and choice of Nakataea was admitted by the community, the genus Magnaporthe will be synonymized to it as you discussed. As Lorelei Norvell wrote, however, the genus name Magnaporthe would normally cease to exist, regardless of the number of species contained within it, unless the type species is changed through conservation. It is a normal fate of synonymized name, unless its type was found later to be another different fungus. It appear that Magnaporthe may have its free position after the synonymy, but in the normal nomenclatural process, the past fact that Magnaporthe was established based on Leptosphaeria salvinii Catt. (as Magnaporthe salvinii (Catt.) Krause and Webster) is not deleted. As an simple idea, if I suggested newly a genus, e.g. Magnaporthe T.Aoki (2013), based on the rice blast fungus, it is invalid and rejected, because of the later homonym of Magnaporthe Krause & R.K. Webster (1972). So the latter name is not erased totally but its nomenclatural status will be kept permanently together with its type, even if it is a nomenclatural synonym of Nakataea. I think only its usage will cease to exist.
To use the name Magnaporthe Krause & R.K. Webster for the rice blast fungus, only possible way is to conserve the name with a replaced type species, i.e. (probably) Magnaporthe oryzae B.C. Couch (or Magnaporthe grisea (Hebert) Barr; but not Magnaporthe salvinii). Conservation process of the name would be a kind of declaration and decisive. Theoretically or as a process, it can suggested to Botanical Congress, General Committee for Nomenclature, based on the NCF consideration/decision. Stability of the nomenclature based on this should also be well-considered, as Amy wrote. Synonymization of Magnaporthe to Nakatae may reduce its possible risk (demand) to transfer former Magnaporthe species to another genus (genera) after selecting this genus, but it is unrelated to the free usage of the name, Magnaporthe. Currently or permanently, the name Magnaporthe is occupied nomenclaturally and typified by Leptosphaeria salvinii Catt., and also keeping the unchanged spelling. Then, I was writing that replacement of the type species and name conservation of Magnaporthe is the absolute requirements for the name change of the rice blast fungus.
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
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 professeur émérite Montpellier SupAgro
Dear Dr. Barbara,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your summary of the whole discussion. It's very much clear and looking forward approach. Also, thanks for your concern towards my feelings. I am enjoying the discussion very much.
To me, the issue between Pyricularia and Magnaporthe is not complicated. The issue was there initially because of the taxonomic rule preferring the name of sexual stage. So, people started using Magnaporthe as well. That was going fine, both the names side by side. Now, the 'one fungus, one name' initiative has brought back the issue again. As I understand the problem is not the 'taxonomic rule' now (as the rice blast community can propose an appropriate name with scientific reasons and get approval from the taxonomic committee), but what the name should be, Pyricularia or Magnaporthe?
The 'Pyricularia' is the genus name which has been in existence for over 133 years since P.A. Saccardo first described it in 1880. The 'Magnaporthe' is the genus name described in 1972 by R.A. Krause and R.K. Webster. So, Pyricularia is 92 years older than Magnaporthe.
Comparing these two names with each other for their appropriateness at the present context, Pyricularia does not have any controversy. The name perfectly matches with the 'pyriform' conidium, the one and only infective stage of the fungus. And it holds the greatest significance as the name has been used for the rice blast fungus. The fungus is so important because it causes the destructive disease in rice crop, the crop on which one fifth of the world population (more than a billion people) depend for their livelihoods. That was the only reason why scientists have been receiving huge funds to work on the fungus and they have been successful to develop it as a model plant pathogen as well. That's the best part of it and they deserve big congratulations. It's not that the scientists have been successful because they use the name Magnaporthe instead of Pyricularia.
Unlike Pyricularia, Magnaporthe is not free from controversy. Magnaporthe spores have been produced in laboratories and yet to found in nature. Its role in disease cycle has not been established yet. Also, the latest phylogenetic findings have clearly shown that Magnaporthe oryzae is distantly related with Magnaporthe salvinni, which was first described as the first type species of Magnaporthe by Krause and Webster in 1972. So, there is now question over the Magnaporthe as the name of rice blast fungus.
Now, if we are going to stick on 'one fungus, one name' initiative the best option is 'Pyricularia'. That should be used as the 'whole' name for rice blast fungus, both asexual and sexual stages. That will erase all the confusion. I know that is not so easy as we are divided.
Another option is - let's forget about 'one fungus, one name'. Keep both the names as anamorph and teleomorph states. No problem, even if the teleomorph state gets new name based on phylogenetic results. And we know for sure that the anamorph name is not going to change. I believe the rules can be exempted for exceptional cases like rice blast, and even the rule can be changed, if necessary.
Best regards.
Hira Kaji Manandhar
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteThere is one thing I would like to note. In the e-mail message posted by Dr. Lebrun on Sept. 13, he says that,
The one name one fungus initiative only want to avoid two names for the same >species but prefer the sexual stage name when it exists.
According to Wingfield et al. (Mol. Plant Pathol. 13:604-613. 2012), however,
"Based on the accepted recommendations, all legitimate fungal names are now treated equally for the purposes of establishing priority, essentially meaning
that anamorphic genera compete with teleomorph genera based on priority, I.e., precedence by date [thus Trichoderma (1794) not Hypocrea (1825), Alternaria
(1817) not Lewia (1986), Cladosporium (1816) not Davidiella (2003), Fusarium (1809) not Gibberella (1877), Sphaceloma (1874) not Elsinoe (1900), Diaporthe
(1870) not Phomopsis (1905), Phyllosticta (1818) not Guignardia (1892・, etc.]. Exceptions (younger, more commonly used genera) for conservation would, however,
be considered by the Committee........￣.
So, If Magnaporthe is adopted as a generic name for the blast fungi, it should be an exception.
Regards,
**********************************
Yukio TOSA
Graduate School of Agricultural Science
Kobe University
Nada, Kobe 657-8501, JAPAN
TEL: 078-803-6544/6540
**********************************
Dear Yukio Tosa
ReplyDeleteI can also quote Wingfield
"Exceptions (younger, more COMMONLY used genera) for conservation would be considered by the Committee"
The term commonly used genera I think perfectly apply to our case
Magnaporthe has been used by the whole rice blast community in the past 25 years
as already discussed in many mails: 1235 publications in Pubmed
after the first switch in 1986 to Magnaporthe (first publication in pubmed with Magnaporthe grisea as name in the title)
Even yourself have published papers mostly using Magnaporthe since 2001
All your papers for 1999-2001 are under the name Pyricularia (3 papers, PubMed).
After 2001, only 4 papers are under the name Pyricularia while 32 are under the name Magnaporthe.
The same apply to Barbara Valent whose papers only use Magnaporthe as species name
since 1986 (I have not found any of her papers using the name Pyricularia in Pubmed).
Furthermore, she has been essential in having the community to change from Pyricularia to Magnaporthe at this time
(therefore I do not understand her emotion about Pyricularia).
This is true for many others scientists including myself that have published his first papers using Pyricularia (2 in Pubmed) and switched to Magnaporthe (32
papers) in 1997 (later than B Valent) for ever since. I should also reveal that B Valent was the one that convince me to use Magnaporthe during my post-doctoral
period in her lab in 1991-2.
Therefore, I really think that Magnaporthe has been fully adopted by the rice blast community (including B Valent and Y Tosa).
Since 1986. It has been widely used in :
publications, reports, grant proposals, quarantine descriptions, web sites, sequence databases, etc.
and as such MERITS to be conserved as COMMONLY USED GENERA NAME.
All the best
MH
Pedro Crous wrote on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 07:20:56 +0000
ReplyDeleteAlthough I like Pyricularia, MH may have a point. I just checked Google Scholar, 25 000 hits for Pyricularia, but 50 000 hits for Magnaporthe. I realize that
Google scholar is not a good index, but it does give some kind of indication of the use of a name in common press (incl. books).
The common name of the disease will remain the same, irrespective of what gets decided. Whichever option is taken for the generic name, one will still be able
to refer to the Pyricularia morph, or if the other scenario is taken, the Magnaporthe morph. These names will remain in common use. But for trade, quarantine,
and scientific literature, it would be good if one name gets used in the end to ensure that there is consistency and clarity in communication at various levels
of decision making. For the Dothistroma needle blight pathogen (red band disease of pines), for instance, up to four different names are used on the quarantine
lists in various countries. However, they are in fact all referring to the same fungus (though many quarantine officers will not realize this at first glance).
For these and several other reasons, we need to reach consensus on the choice of the generic name.
Best wishes
Pedro Crous
Dear Rice Blast Workers,
ReplyDeleteMy name is Takayuki Aoki.
Although I am working on Fusarium but not on rice blast fungus, I made one vote to Pyricularia
because it was quite an important fungus for Japanese Phytopathology and Agriculture.
However, as I wrote in the Ning's Blog page before (correctly, Ning pasted my E-mail to the page),
I am considering that the rice blast problem should be solved by rice blast workers themselves.
I was watching carefully and interestingly the sequence of the discussion and I feel it is quite important and good opportunities that
may lead to a fruitful future of rice blast studies.
I have been keeping my quite silent attitude and watching calmly the discussion, but I would like to send my own consideration
(or my criticism) on the problem.
There are probably many people considering that they are forced to unify the teleomorphic and anamorphic names of the rice blast fungus,
because of the recent change of the Botanical Nomenclature, by the alteration of Article 59 of ICNafp; i.e., because of the abandonment of
so-called dual naming system of fungi, we should select either Magnaporthe or Pyricularia for the rice blast fungus....
I am considering somewhat differently and it is a paradoxical consideration from the current situation.
I think the problem is of somewhat different issues from the current nomenclatural unification of fungal scientific names.
When we consider that we stil have the unchanged Article 59 of the Botanical Nomenclature as in the past code,
what may happen with the name of the rice blast fungus?
Could we keep continuously usage of both Magnaporthe grisea (oryzae) and Pyricularia grisea (oryzae) for the species?
Phylogenetically the genus Magnaporthe in the broad sense had better be divided into plural genera,
i.e., a group with the rice blast fungus and another group with Magnaporthe salvini, etc.
Under a possible condition that we keep the old, unchanged Article 59 to guarantee us to use dual nomenclature of fungi
(applying teleomorphic and anamorphic names for an identical fungus), how it will be, when we would like to divide
the genus Magnaporthe? Which name will be kept on the rice blast fungus?
In this case, we should consider on the possible name change of the rice blast fungus, too.
My consideration is that the current argument may also based on the structure of the genus Magnaporthe,
i.e., the type species of Magnaporthe is not the rice blast fungus.
When the type species of both genera, Magnaporthe and Pyricularia are identical, the choice of the name will be rather arbitrary.
When we call the rice blast fungus as Magnaporthe continuously, we absolutely require "switching or replacement of its type species"
to the rice blast fungus, even if under the past Botanical Code.
It is not a newly happened problem because of the change of the code, but a structural one coming out from its own basis.
I think the rice blast workers are requested to face and consider to solve the problem for a good future,
irrespective of the current requirement to select one name to unify its scientific names according to the new Botanical Code.
It would possibly be good to consider the problem separately from the code.
I am expecting fruitful discussion on this theme to be able to arrive at a satisfactory answer for the community.
An impartial voting system may solve a part of the problem.
I will return to my silent attitude, again.
With best wishes,
Takayuki
________________________________
Dr. Takayuki AOKI, Mycologist, Unit Leader
Classification and Evaluation Research Unit
(responsible for Microorganisms Section of the NIAS Genebank)
Genetic Resources Center (MAFF)
National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences
2-1-2 Kannondai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8602 JAPAN
________________________________
Dear All:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate all comments and useful discussions on this topic. I am ok with either Magnaporthe or Pyricularia. However, I prefer Magnaporthe over Pyricularia.
Best regards,
Yulin
Yulin Jia Ph.D.
Research Plant Molecular Pathologist
USDA-ARS Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center
Stuttgart, AR 72160, USA
Tel: 870 672 9300 ext: 229
Email: yulin.jia@ars.usda.gov
http://ars.usda.gov/spa/dbnrrc/mpp
University of Arkansas
http://plantpathology.uark.edu/2245.php
http://www.plantpoweredproduction.com/faculty/yulin-jia/
http://cemb.uark.edu/cembfaculty.html
Dear All Concerned with this issue,
ReplyDeleteFor a number of reasons, I am convinced that the name that will result in the most stability for this group of fungi is Pyricularia.
1. Pyricularia is a large genus of plant pathogens that occur on a number of hosts. At present there are 75 names placed in Pyricularia. If Magnaporthe were conserved with a different type species, all of the other species in Pyricularia would have to be changed to Magnaporthe. In my view this would be much more disruptive than returning to the name used previously, Pyricularia oryzae.
2. The type species of Magnaporthe, M. salvinii, is not congeneric with P. oryzae; they are not even sister taxa but actually somewhat distantly related. See Zhuang et al. 2011. The name Magnaporthe salvinii would have to be changed as well.
3. The high number of required name changes might prevent the Committee on the Nomenclature of Fungi from accepting a proposal to conserve the name Magnaporthe with a new type species. This is the official body that must recommend a conservation proposal for acceptance that is then voted on by all participants at the nomenclature session at the International Botanical Congress.
4. From travelling around the world speaking with plant pathologists, I know that they know the rice blast fungus and related species as Pyricularia. (But, to be honest, most of them are still using P. grisea.)
All the best!
Amy
Dr. Amy Rossman, Research Leader
Systematic Mycology & Microbiology Laboratory
USDA-ARS, Rm. 246, B010A
10300 Baltimore Ave.
Beltsville, MD 20705
301-504-5366
Amy.Rossman@ars.usda.gov
http://ars.usda.gov/ba/psi/smml
Dear all,
ReplyDeleteI have been monitoring your discussion of the past eight days with a fair amount of interest, and thought that perhaps a little nomenclatural clarification (based on the Code of International Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants) might be in order. Unfortunately I don’t have time at the present to go into more depth. I have included below parts of the Code (in black type) that may answer some of your questions. Regarding the conservation process, the bold portion should appear in red type.
The generic name is tied to its type species. The Code notes:
10.1. The type of a name of a genus or of any subdivision of a genus is the type of a name of a species (except as provided by Art. 10.4 ).
10.2. If in the protologue of a name of a genus or of any subdivision of a genus the holotype or lectotype of one or more previously or simultaneously published species name(s) is definitely included (see Art. 10.3 ), the type must be chosen from among these types ....
10.4. By and only by conservation (Art. 14.9 ), the type of a name of a genus may be a specimen or illustration, preferably used by the author in the preparation of the protologue, other than the type of a name of an included species.
10.5. The author who first designates (Art. 7.9 and 7.10 ) a type of a name of a genus or subdivision of a genus must be followed, but the choice may be superseded if (a) it can be shown that it is in serious conflict with the protologue (or with the sanctioning treatment in the case of names typified from the sanctioning work, Art. 10.2(b) ), or (b) that it was based on a largely mechanical method of selection.
Magnaporthe was established by Krause & Webster in 1972, who cited Leptoshaeria salvinii Catt. (1876) as type. According to 10.5, their designation MUST BE FOLLOWED. If for some reason the type species is found to be synonymous with another species/taxon and transferred to the genus of the synonym [in Barbara’s example, that would be Nakataea], the genus name Magnaporthe would cease to exist, regardless of the number of species contained within it, unless the type species is changed through conservation.
Article 14 dealing with conservation follows. This may be a bit difficult at first, so you’ll probably have to read through the text several times before it begins to make sense. I have not taken the time to review the nomenclatural trails pertinent to the Magnaporthe/Pyricularia discussion, so you should take the time to browse through the entire Code to see what you are dealing with nomenclaturally. (I have not copied the ‘new’ Article 59 out for you, but it would be good to read through it and its recommendations and examples as they will explain how we’ve reached this fix to begin with. The Code is available to everyone at www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php
CHAPTER II. Status, typification, and priority of names
ReplyDeleteSECTION 4. Limitation of the principle of priority
Article 14
14.1. In order to avoid disadvantageous nomenclatural changes entailed by the strict application of the rules, and especially of the principle of priority in starting from the dates given in Art. 13 , this Code provides, in App. II–IV, lists of names of families, genera, and species that are conserved (nomina conservanda) (see Rec. 50E.1 ). Conserved names are legitimate even though initially they may have been illegitimate. The name of a subdivision of a genus or of an infraspecific taxon may be conserved with a conserved type and listed in App. III and IV, respectively, when it is the basionym of a name of a genus or species that could not continue to be used in its current sense without conservation.
14.2. Conservation aims at retention of those names that best serve stability of nomenclature.
14.3. The application of both conserved and rejected names is determined by nomenclatural types. The type of the species name cited as the type of a conserved generic name may, if desirable, be conserved and listed in App. III.
14.4. A conserved name of a family or genus is conserved against all other names in the same rank based on the same type (homotypic, i.e. nomenclatural, synonyms, which are to be rejected) whether or not these are cited in the corresponding list as rejected names, and against those names based on different types (heterotypic, i.e. taxonomic, synonyms) that are listed as rejected1 . A conserved name of a species is conserved against all names listed as rejected, and against all combinations based on the rejected names. (Notes removed as not pertinent to the current discussion)
14.5. When a conserved name competes with one or more names based on different types and against which it is not explicitly conserved, the earliest of the competing names is adopted in accordance with Art. 11 , except for the conserved family names listed in App. IIB, which are conserved against unlisted names.
Ex. 2. If Mahonia Nutt. (1818) is united with Berberis L. (1753), the combined genus will bear the prior name Berberis, although Mahonia is conserved and Berberis is not.
Ex. 3. Nasturtium R. Br. (1812) was conserved only against the homonym Nasturtium Mill. (1754) and the homotypic (nomenclatural) synonym Cardaminum Moench (1794); consequently if reunited with Rorippa Scop. (1760) it must bear the name Rorippa.
Ex. 4. Combretaceae R. Br. (1810) is conserved against the unlisted earlier heterotypic name Terminaliaceae J. St.-Hil. (Expos. Fam. Nat. 1: 178. 1805).
14.6. When a name of a taxon has been conserved against an earlier heterotypic synonym, the latter is to be restored, subject to Art. 11 , if it is considered the name of a taxon at the same rank distinct from that of the conserved name.
ReplyDeleteEx. 5. The generic name Luzuriaga Ruiz & Pav. (1802) is conserved against the earlier names Enargea Banks ex Gaertn. (1788) and Callixene Comm. ex Juss. (1789). If, however, Enargea is considered to be a separate genus, the name Enargea is retained for it.
Ex. 6. To preserve the name Roystonea regia (Kunth) O. F. Cook (1900), its basionym Oreodoxa regia Kunth (1816) is conserved against Palma elata W. Bartram (1791). However, the name R. elata (W. Bartram) F. Harper (1946) can be used for a species distinct from R. regia.
14.7. A rejected name, or a combination based on a rejected name, may not be restored for a taxon that includes the type of the corresponding conserved name.
Ex. 7. Enallagma Baill. (1888) is conserved against Dendrosicus Raf. (1838), but not against Amphitecna Miers (1868); if Enallagma, Dendrosicus, and Amphitecna are united, the combined genus must bear the name Amphitecna, although the latter is not explicitly conserved against Dendrosicus.
14.8. The listed type and spelling of a conserved name (evident misspellings excepted) may only be changed by the procedure outlined in Art. 14.12 .
Ex. 8. Bullock & Killick (in Taxon 6: 239. 1957) published a proposal that the listed type of Plectranthus L’Hér. be changed from P. punctatus (L. f.) L’Hér. to P. fruticosus L’Hér. This proposal was approved by the appropriate committees and by an International Botanical Congress.
14.9. A name may be conserved with a different type from that designated by the author or determined by application of the Code (see also Art. 10.4 ). Such a name may be conserved either from its place of valid publication (even though the type may not then have been included in the named taxon) or from a later publication by an author who did include the type as conserved. In the latter case the original name and the name as conserved are treated as if they were homonyms (Art. 53 ), whether or not the name as conserved was accompanied by a description or diagnosis of the taxon named.
Ex. 9. Bromus sterilis L. (1753) has been conserved from its place of valid publication even though its conserved type, a specimen (Hubbard 9045, E) collected in 1932, was not originally included in Linnaeus’s species.
Ex. 10. Protea L. (1753) did not include the conserved type of the generic name, P. cynaroides (L.) L. (1771), which in 1753 was placed in the genus Leucadendron. Protea was therefore conserved from the 1771 publication, and Protea L. (1771), although not intended to be a new generic name and still including the original type elements, is treated as if it were a validly published homonym of Protea L. (1753).
14.10. A conserved name, with any corresponding autonym, is conserved against all earlier homonyms. An earlier homonym of a conserved name is not made illegitimate by that conservation but is unavailable for use; if not otherwise illegitimate, it may serve as basionym of another name or combination based on the same type (see also Art. 55.3 ).
ReplyDeleteEx. 11. The generic name Smithia Aiton (1789), conserved against Damapana Adans. (1763), is conserved automatically against the earlier homonym Smithia Scop. (1777) – Blumea DC. (1833) is conserved automatically against Blumea Rchb. (1828–1829), although the latter name is not listed alongside the former in App. III.
14.11. A name may be conserved in order to preserve a particular spelling or gender. A name so conserved is to be attributed without change of date to the author who validly published it, not to an author who later introduced the conserved spelling or gender.
Ex. 12. The spelling Rhodymenia, used by Montagne (1839), has been conserved against the original spelling Rhodomenia, used by Greville (1830). The name is to be cited as Rhodymenia Grev. (1830).
Note 3. The date upon which a name was conserved does not affect its priority (Art. 11 ), which is determined only on the basis of the date of its valid publication (Art. 32 –45 ; but see Art. 14.9 and 14.15 ).
14.12. The lists of conserved names will remain permanently open for additions and changes. Any proposal of an additional name must be accompanied by a detailed statement of the cases both for and against conservation. Such proposals must be submitted to the General Committee (see Div. III ), which will refer them for examination to the committees for the various taxonomic groups (see also Art. 34.1 and 56.2 ).
14.13. In the interest of nomenclatural stability, for organisms treated as fungi (including lichenicolous fungi, but excluding lichen-forming fungi and those fungi traditionally associated with them taxonomically, e.g. Mycocaliciaceae), lists of names may be submitted to the General Committee, which will refer them to the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi (see Div. III ) for examination by subcommittees established by that Committee in consultation with the General Committee and appropriate international bodies. Accepted names on these lists, which become Appendices of the Code once reviewed and approved by the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi and the General Committee, are to be listed with their types together with those competing synonyms (including sanctioned names) against which they are treated as conserved (see also Art. 56.3 ).
14.14. Entries of conserved names may not be deleted.
Ex. 13. Alternaria “Nees ex Wallr. (1833)” was conserved against Macrosporium Fr. (1832) in the Seattle Code (1972), as Fries’s name had been used in the then starting-point work for fungi. Following the abolition of later starting-point dates for fungi at the Sydney Congress in 1981 and in the Sydney Code (1983), and the recognition that Nees’s name had been accepted by Fries in the introduction to the sanctioning work (Syst. Mycol. 1: xlvi. 1821), conservation became unnecessary. As the entry cannot be deleted, Alternaria Nees (1816–1817) continues to be listed in App. III, but without a corresponding rejected name.
14.15. The places of publication cited for conserved names of families in App. IIB are treated as correct in all circumstances and consequently are not to be changed, except under the provisions of Art. 14.12 , even when otherwise such a name would not be validly published or when it is a later isonym.
14.16. When a proposal for the conservation of a name has been approved by the General Committee after study by the Committee for the taxonomic group concerned, retention of that name is authorized subject to the decision of a later International Botanical Congress (see also Art. 34.2 and 56.4 ).
But note: we hope to have the controversial problems voted on next year in Bangkok at IMC10.
ReplyDeleteRemember — taxonomy and nomenclature are two different things. Taxonomy follows science, nomenclature its ‘rule book’ (The Code). Don’t confuse the two!
Have fun!
Warm regards,
Lorelei
Lorelei Norvell, Secretary
Nomenclature Committee for Fungi
Dr. Lorelei L Norvell
Secretary, IBC Nomenclature Committee for Fungi
Pacific Northwest Mycology Service & Mycotaxon
llnorvell@pnw-ms.com
[editor@mycotaxon.com]
6720 NW Skyline Boulevard
Portland, OR 97229-1309 USA
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteDr. Amy Rossman's contribution in the discussion has made things more clear though she has reservation regarding 'oryzae' and 'grisea'. Thanks to Dr. Rossman. Let me comment first on the question put by Dr. Jin-Rong Xu to Dr. Rossman (sorry, I am not speaking on behalf of Dr. Rossman). Though we are discussing specifically about the rice blast fungus, not the entire Pyricularia genus, that will certainly have an impact on the entire Pyricularia genus. A system for adopting latin name cannot be different from one user (rice blast workers) to another (non-rice blast workers).
There has been some emphasis on the votes from the 6th IRBC. The 6th IRBC was an event where some 140 rice blast researchers from 22 countries (only 91 voted) attended and shared their findings. Majority of them were young researchers and students working on molecular aspects of the fungus, who know very little or even nothing about the name Pyricularia. So far, the 'Rice Blast Genetics Policy Committee' is concerned, Dr. Barbara Valent is right that most of the rice blast researchers around the world are not aware of the Committee. Many rice blast workers do not know who formed it and when it was formed; do not know about its composition, how people are selected for it, what are the terms of references etc? By saying this, I am not disregarding the votes from the 6th IRBC; the point here is that the discussion has gone beyond the IRBC and the voting (whatever format we are using now) is being done internationally. So, the IRBC voting will have no meaning here. If we had wanted the IRBC votes as the final votes from the rice blast community we should have stopped the voting process right there (the last day of the IRBC). It didn't happen that way. One more thing, all the people who have voted at the IRBC meeting must have voted in the on-going internet voting as well. So, their votes are included anyway.
Whatever we call it, our 'model fungus' or our 'trade mark' or 'brand name', the fact is that it's the 'rice blast fungus'. (No one has said yet I don't care the disease). Rice blast is occurring in the rice fields. Rice breeders, rice pathologists and extension workers (and may not be necessary to mention millions of farmers) are fighting the disease in more than 100 countries. (I am not saying here the laboratory scientists do not have role in the disease management. They have great role. I loved the theme of the 6th IRBC - "Translation from Genomics to Disease Management".).
I very much appreciate the contribution made by Dr. Lorelei Norvell in the on-going discussion. Dr. Norvell has reminded so thoughtfully that taxonomy and nomenclature are two different things. So, whichever name (Pyricularia or Magnaporthe?) fits well for rice blast fungus, from both the science and rule point of view, that should be the final one. I don't think, it should be the case of giving 'consideration' because it's a model fungus and finding 'space' (which Dr. Barbara hinted in her last e-mail, and I don't think so). Rice blast fungus is an organism, it's not man-made. So, it can be not treated as a patented product.
ReplyDeleteAt last but not least, knowledge and facts which were thought to be correct earlier are not necessarily should remain the same. A scientist should change her/his stand when new knowledge and facts are emerged. That is science. As Dr. MH Lebrun revealed in one of his e-mails that Dr. Barbara Valent was the one who had convinced him to use Magnaporthe in 1991-92 when he was doing post-doc in the latter's lab. Now new facts are there so Dr. Valent changed her mind. Dr. Lebrun also wrote to Dr. Yokio Tosa mentioning that Dr. Tosa and Dr. Valent themselves are using Magnaporthe in their publications. As I think, Dr. Valent is the most senior figure in the today's rice blast community and she is somehow obliged to follow the rule. I take it as her unbiased nature to scientific community. This is my personal view. Now, she has realized that Pyricularia is the appropriate name and she is going for that. Once it is decided by the authority she would follow it, no matter whether it is Pyricularia or Magnaporthe, but others may not. (Sorry, I am not speaking on behalf of Dr. Valent. It's just my view).
Best regards.
Hira Kaji Manandhar
I am a bit supicious about the statement "MUST BE FOLLOWED". Rules have been changing since the last 20 years. What guarantee do we have that they will not change again? in additon, this is very interesting to see that some of the people who are using the argument of following the rules now (I am not talking about Lorelei), have not followed the rules during the past 25 years and kept using Pyricularia when Magnaporthe was the official name.
ReplyDeleteAgain, the point is what name does the rice blast community wants. Then we will do the required changes because whatever our choice their will be changes for some species.
Have a good day
Didier
Le 21/09/2013 01:13, Lorelei Norvell a écrit :
On 9/20/13 12:58 PM, Barbara Valent wrote:
Dear Ning,
As I understand according to your recent paper (Luo and Zhang,
Mycologia 2013, 105:1019-1029), M. poae, M. rhizophila, and M.
incrustans are now suggested to be 'Magnaporthiopsis.' It is
also suggested that M. salvinii becomes Nakataea oryzae. I
realize that you also suggest that M. oryzae becomes
Pyricularia oryzae. But doesn't this all mean that
'Magnaporthe' would be available for the rice blast fungus?
Please clarify the current status of the name Magnaporthe for
non-taxonomists like me!
Also, how difficult is it to change the type species? What
actual work is involved?
Thank you for your insight and all of your effort on behalf of
our community.
Best wishes, Barbara
Dear Didier
ReplyDeleteI think the comment about rules that "must be followed" stems from a
nomenclatural point of view. At the end of the day, plant pathologists
will use the name they want to use. A good example is my good colleague
Pierre de Wit, who still continues to work on "Cladosporium" fulvum,
regardless. However, we need to strive for stability by ending up with
one genus name for this clade, which will be the genus name to be placed
on the list of protected names. Having said that, Amy Rossman raised some
very important issues, and to change the name of a well established genus
for one species, may be fighting an uphill battle, as clearly there is a
large Pyricularia user community that do not work on rice blast disease.
Best wishes
Pedro Crous
Dear Pedro
ReplyDeleteThe Pyricularia community beside Magnaporthe/Pyricularia oryzae/grisea
is limited to very few groups and
really few papers (bibliography will follow today)
If we speak of use there is no possible comparison
between the use of Magnaporthe grisea/oryzae by a large community
and the use of Pyricularia outside of Pyricularia oryzae/grisea
Furthermore, you know as I that the Pyricularia genus is as polyphyletic
as the old Magnaporthe genus (Zhang et al 2013) both for
molecular taxonomy criteria and morphological criteria
(the same situation as old Magnporthe genus)
So what to do in such a case, should we eliminate Pyricularia as a genus
since it is polyphyletic as proposed for the old Magnaporthe genus ?
All the best
MH
The fact that a genus is polyphyletic has no being on this nomenclature issue. All that matters is where the type species of a genus belongs and what species are truly related to i.e. congeneric with that type species. A type species and its congeneric species must have the same generic name. These are some very basic ideas that relate to phylogeny and nomenclature.
ReplyDeleteAmy
Hi
ReplyDeleteI am not sure that "there is a large Pyricularia user community that do not work on rice blast".
Didier
I am sorry to say that the polyphyletic nature of old Magnaporthe genus was the argument to
ReplyDeletedefine new genera in these related clades (see Zhang et al 2013)
by nature in polyphyletic genera, only one clade has the type species
while the other clades do not have it
with regard to the Old Magnaporthe genus
you had clades unrelated to the type species clade
with the same genus name gathering also species with other genus name
this is exactly the situation found for the Pyricularia genus
the parallel is strinking, so the same rules should apply
don't you think so ?
MH
Dear all,
ReplyDeleteWhat we do know-
The type of Magnaporthe is the rice stem rot fungus, which is not congeneric with the rice blast fungus.
The type of Pyricularia is P. grisea, which is close to the rice blast fungus.
What we do not know-
Pyricularia has more than 70 species. We still are not clear on Pyricularia's phylogeny due to lack of multi-gene sequence data for many Pyricularia species. If we conserve Magnaporthe for the rice blast fungus, where to delimit the genus would be a big issue. My lab and Izumi's group etc. are busy generating more sequence data, which will help us better understand these species' relationships.
As Lorelei said, hope this will be voted in Bangkok IMC10 next August but if needed, we can wait till the next International Botanical Congress (2017).
I copy Takayuki's message regarding the nomenclature process for conserving Magnaporthe-
-----------
Dear Ning,
I think that Nakataea oryzae instead of Magnaporthe salvinii is a great finding. Segregation of poae, rhizophila and incrustans to a new genus Magnaporthiopsis is also clear-cut treatment. I was actually interested in it. It is a good taxonomic consideration but not of nomenclatural issue, so I consider. When your consideration and choice of Nakataea was admitted by the community, the genus Magnaporthe will be synonymized to it as you discussed. As Lorelei Norvell wrote, however, the genus name Magnaporthe would normally cease to exist, regardless of the number of species contained within it, unless the type species is changed through conservation. It is a normal fate of synonymized name, unless its type was found later to be another different fungus. It appear that Magnaporthe may have its free position after the synonymy, but in the normal nomenclatural process, the past fact that Magnaporthe was established based on Leptosphaeria salvinii Catt. (as Magnaporthe salvinii (Catt.) Krause and Webster) is not deleted. As an simple idea, if I suggested newly a genus, e.g. Magnaporthe T.Aoki (2013), based on the rice blast fungus, it is invalid and rejected, because of the later homonym of Magnaporthe Krause & R.K. Webster (1972). So the latter name is not erased totally but its nomenclatural status will be kept permanently together with its type, even if it is a nomenclatural synonym of Nakataea. I think only its usage will cease to exist.
To use the name Magnaporthe Krause & R.K. Webster for the rice blast fungus, only possible way is to conserve the name with a replaced type species, i.e. (probably) Magnaporthe oryzae B.C. Couch (or Magnaporthe grisea (Hebert) Barr; but not Magnaporthe salvinii). Conservation process of the name would be a kind of declaration and decisive. Theoretically or as a process, it can suggested to Botanical Congress, General Committee for Nomenclature, based on the NCF consideration/decision. Stability of the nomenclature based on this should also be well-considered, as Amy wrote. Synonymization of
Magnaporthe to Nakatae may reduce its possible risk (demand) to transfer former Magnaporthe species to another genus (genera) after selecting this genus, but it is unrelated to the free usage of the name, Magnaporthe. Currently or permanently, the name Magnaporthe is occupied nomenclaturally and typified by Leptosphaeria salvinii Catt., and also keeping the unchanged spelling. Then, I was writing that replacement of the type species and name conservation of Magnaporthe is the absolute requirements for the name change of the rice blast fungus.
With best wishes,
Takayuki
Dear Marc Henri,
ReplyDeletePlease 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 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
professeur émérite
Montpellier SupAgro