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-

Please VOTE NOW - update

Rice Blast Fungus Name -- Magnaporthe or Pyricularia?  (31 March 2013)

The asexual genus name Pyricularia has been used for the rice blast fungus since 1892.  Based on morphological similarity, the sexual state of the rice blast fungus was believed to belong to Magnaporthe, and was named as Magnaporthe oryzae in 2002.   However, recent phylogenetic analyses from different labs all demonstrated that the rice blast fungus does not belong to Magnaporthe.  Therefore, a name change is needed.  The new fungal nomenclature requires One Name for One Fungus, and the asexual state names are now treated equally as the sexual state names.  As the oldest and legitimate generic name for the rice blast fungus, Pyricularia has the priority.  However, because this fungus is a widely used model system and has large impacts, researchers from all over the world have been discussing this name issue since April 2012 in the CBS One Fungus, Which Name symposium at Amsterdam.  The most recent discuss was at the Asilomar Fungal Genetics Conference in March 2013.  A summary of the reasons for using Pyricularia vs. Magnaporthe is listed below.  

Discussion

Dec. 18, 2012:

Dear Marc-Henri, Didier, Barbara and All-

One reason for voting now is that naming new taxa in this fungal group (and epitypifications etc.) cannot be done without a settlement for the rice blast.  Certain research and publications will be held up without knowing which name is accepted.  Another reason is that recent discussions on Magnaporthe/Pyricularia names started April 2012 during the CBS Amsterdam One Fungus Which Name symposium.  In the past 7 months, there have been 1,059 pageviews to the Magnaporthe blogger from 10 countries (ranked from most frequent: United States, Japan, France, Russia, India, Germany, Spain, China, Sweden, and South Korea), plus numerous email correspondence among this email group.

However, as you pointed out, a much broader community has not been reached.  I agree that the vote will be extended until after the March 2013 Fungal genetics meeting.  But I still suggest we forward the message through our networks as early as we can. I will send you the poll results next week, although it is not final, for your reference.  I temporarily set the new deadline to March 30, 2013.

Best Regards,

Ning

p.s., on March 13th, 2013 during the Fungal genetics meeting, a brief ad hoc session is planned (http://www.fungalgenetics.org/2013/pages/workshops.shtml) to discuss name changes for model systems. 
---------
Dec. 17, 2012:
 Dear Colleagues

I agree with Marc-Henri and Barbara that we should leave some time for discussion about such an important issue. Some meetings are coming where naming/renaming our favorite fungus could be discussed. Only part of the community had the opportunity to express. There's no hurry.

Regards
Didier