Izumi Chuma's slides for IRBC

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.  

Please VOTE NOW

Hi All-

The type species of Magnaporthe is Magnaporthe salvinii (rice stem rot), which is not congeneric with Magnaporthe (Pyricularia) oryzae or grisea, based on phylogenetic analysis, morphology, and ecological characters (for details, see Zhang et al. Mycologia. 2011 103(6):1267-76. doi: 10.3852/11-022).  Therefore, a change of genus name is needed.  If we follow the new nomenclature (Melbourne Code), which considers names for sexual and asexual morphs equally, the name for the rice blast fungus should be Pyricularia oryzae, while the name for the stem rot is Nakataea oryzae, because these are the older generic names.  Another option is to write a proposal to conserve the genus Magnaporthe for the blast fungus.

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

FunGI @ Rutgers University

FunGI @ Rutgers University (http://dblab.rutgers.edu/FunGI/)

Fungal Genome Initiative at Rutgers University