Thermotolerant fungi erroneously reported in applied research work as possessing thermophilic attributes

In applied research work dealing with heat-tolerant fungi, currently classified into two groups: namely thermotolerants and thermophiles, information on levels of thermotolerance is generally scant. Cited binomials are often referred to as representatives of thermophilic taxa. The present contribution attempts to specify proper heat-tolerance levels of species cited in biotechnological papers of academic and applied research types published in the last four decades. This assessment integrates relevant available information concerning well defined thermotolerant taxa. Distinction between both groups of heat-tolerant fungi is a mean to optimize investigations of temperature-dependent physiological processes. The nomenclatural status of the binomials retrieved was also re-appraised following the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. Articles of the code govern the legal validity of fungal names. The goal is to deter `ghost names' that have no status of any kind. Their use in the literature is not only a source of confusion but also hinders the preparation of sound reviews and reference documents. The intention was also to detect names which do not fulfill all criteria for a valid legal publication. Their status could then be validated if the taxonomic position of the fungus justifies this procedure. The taxonomic status of these thermotolerants was also re-examined following present-day knowledge of their respective genera. Integration of warranted taxonomic decisions in the literature of applied research is crucial. These decisions consider the status of a fungus as a valid species (proposed synonymies) or the nature of its generic affinities (name change). Strict application of these decisions severly reduces levels of heterogeneity regarding names used for the same organism. It also clarifies its generic affinities with other thermotolerant fungi. The present note is not an exhaustive assessment on the nomenclatural and taxonomic positions of known thermotolerant fungi, an ecological group for which a global document remains to be produced. It only deals with those taxa most commonly cited in the literature examined. Over 130 fungi are here considered. The group manifests a diversity of taxonomic characters since it includes members of the following systematic groupings: Oomycetes, Zygomycetes, Ascomycetes, anamorphic fungi and Holobasidiomycetes. Few new taxonomic synonyms and invalid binomials are introduced in the present contribution. The former concern the following taxa: Gilmaniella thermophila, Mucor thermoaerospora, Sporotrichum lignicola and Zalerion thermophylii. Three binomials proved to have no taxonomic status of any sort: Acremonium cellulophilum, Nodulisporium microsporum and N. thermoroseum. This revised version was published online in November 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Heat tolerant fungi and applied research: Addition to the previously treated group of strictly thermotolerant species

Heat tolerant fungi are organisms that may perform bioconversion processes and produce industrially important metabolites. They may either be obligate thermophiles or simple thermotolerants. The present document is the continuation of a critical note on thermotolerant fungi erroneously reported in the literature as possessing thermophilic attributes. Fifty strictly thermotolerant taxa are here considered. Some of their binomials have only recently been introduced in the scientific literature. The reported thermotolerant species are grouped according to broad taxonomic categories. The nomenclature of zygomycetous taxa and anamorphic fungi is straightforward, as usually only one binomial is available or only one state is produced in culture respectively. For Ascomycetes regularly producing in culture a conidial state, the name of the sexual state (teleomorph) should be used to designate the organism even when a binomial is available for the anamorph; this prevents the practice of interchangeably using the name of either states of the same fungus. When ascomycetous taxa produce the anamorph regularly and the teleomorph only under specific cultural conditions, the name of the anamorph could be preferentially selected. The goal is to introduce uniformity in name citations of fungi, particularly in the literature of applied research. Each species is reported under its taxonomically correct name, either the original binomial or the latest combined binomial after generic transfer(s). Known synonyms are also specified. Maximum efforts were undertaken to trace updated information on the taxonomic position of these fifty strict thermotolerant species. For each, information on the type material, morphological features distinguishing it from related members of the genus (and when necessary a generic taxonomic assessment) and, finally, salient ecological features including heat tolerance levels are given. For some information on their biotechnological use is also provided. Overall 86 strictly thermotolerant fungi are so far documented in the corresponding published and present contributions; however, this figure should not be regarded as exhaustive for the group. Among these 86 taxa ascomycetous fungi (46) presently outnumber anamorphic microfungi (28) but their relevant figures should be regarded as provisional. Only 12 zygomycetous species proved to be strict thermotolerants. Further cardinal temperature growth values established for these 86 thermotolerants disclose no pattern linked to their broad taxonomic categories. Standardized growth temperature curves at increments smaller than 5 °C have to be performed to assess conclusively variability in growth temperature relationships. Several heat tolerant fungi are widely used in industry; however, more research is needed to explore the applied potential of these particular organisms. An exhaustive document on the biodiversity of heat tolerant fungi also awaits production. It would be informative in relation to the global warming process of the earth.     

The anArchive taxonomic Checklist for Italian botanical data banking and vegetation analysis: Theoretical basis and advantages

In recent years, research in botany was increasingly related with the use of large data-sets and data banks, in order to address emerging issues such as the severe risk of species, habitats and biodiversity loss. In this frame, the anArchive taxonomic Checklist, an online synonymized list of botanical species names, developed to support the botanical data banking and vegetation analysis, is presented and discussed here. The benefits deriving from such a supervised and referenced tool are emphasized. They include the possibility to keep track of old and new species names, pointing out the latest reviewed accepted scientific name and its synonyms, and harmonizing different taxonomic points of view. Furthermore, the list is open access and expert qualified customers can collaborate to its improvement. The basic unit of the taxonomic Checklist is an object including the taxon name at specific or, when present, infraspecific level; the taxonomic frame stops at the level of family and ranks higher than genus are not treated hierarchically. Some technical features, the main taxonomic references and the current state of the art are reported.     

Nomenclatural notes on Exbucklandia (Hamamelidaceae)

Three different Latin names, i.e. Bucklandia R. Brown ex Griff., Symingtonia Steenis and Exbucklandia R. W. Brown, have been used for the same genus of the Hamamelidaceae in various botanical books and papers for a long time. Symingtonia Steenis has been widespread and cited as a valid Latin name for this genus. However, the present author found Exbucklandia R. W. Brown to be the only valid Latin name fro this genus and suggested to treat the other two Latin names as synonyms of this genus. The nomenclatural notes for the species are presented in the paper.     

马蹄荷属植物(金缕梅科)学名考

本文对金缕梅科马蹄荷属及其各种植物的拉丁学名和异名进行了考证,确认Exbucklandia R. W. Brown是该属有效的拉丁学名,Bucklandia R. Brown et Griff. 和Symingtonia Steenis作为异名。     

A warning for ecologists and conservation biologists using species checklists: How the European marine fauna ‘lost’ all of its 16 <Emphasis Type="Italic">Discodoris</Emphasis> species (Mollusca: Gastropoda)

The European marine fauna used to be considered to include 16 species of Discodoris sea slugs until a recent worldwide revision demonstrated that there is not a single Discodoris species in European waters. This exemplary case illustrates the fact that species checklists do not accurately represent biodiversity unless they are based on sound taxonomic work in which (1) the status of every available species name has been addressed, i.e. whether it is valid, synonymous, or of doubtful application, and (2) classification reflects phylogenetic relationships. It is argued that taxonomic revisions are critically needed, because the status of species names can only be addressed properly through revisions. It is discussed that fields which depend on taxonomic data, such as conservation biology and ecology, might be affected deeply if problematic species names (synonyms and nomina dubia) have not been recognized. Consequently, it is proposed that a taxon that has not been revised be red-flagged in checklists, so that non-taxonomists will know which species names should be applied with caution or not at all.     

中国药用真菌名录及部分名称的修订

近年来,我国对药用真菌的研究和利用越来越重视,相关报道逐年增加。针对有些种类鉴定有误、拉丁学名使用没有严格遵守最新国际植物命名法规、命名人缩写不规范等问题,作者系统考证了我国药用真菌的名称,共收录473种,对每种名称按新近的研究成果和最新命名法规(维也纳法规)进行了订正,对过去的错误报道或不存在的名称进行了修正,将曾报道的、但应作为其他种的同物异名者列在其正名之后,所有名称定名人的缩写全部按国际植物命名法规的要求加以规范化。每种名称之后还列举了该种的主要药用功能或价值,并引证了主要参考文献。     

REVISION OF THE TYPE MATERIAL AND NOMENCLATURE OF MASTODONSAURUS GIGANTEUS (JAEGER) (TEMNOSPONDYLI) FROM THE MIDDLE TRIASSIC OF GERMANY

Abstract: The type material of Mastodonsaurus is revised and its complicated taxonomic history resolved. The genus was erected by Jaeger in 1828 without a species name, which was added subsequently by Holl (1829) who named the type species Mastodonsaurus jaegeri. The large tooth on which Jaeger based his Mastodonsaurus is chosen herein as lectotype of the type species. A smaller second individual, represented by a piece of an occiput, was also named by Jaeger in 1828 as Salamandroides giganteus and, owing to the find of a complete skull, was recognized in 1833 by the same author as belonging to the same species as the Mastodonsaurus. Therefore, Mastodonsaurus giganteus (Jaeger, 1828) is a senior subjective synonym of the type species M. jaegeri Holl, 1829. The precedence of the two generic names was chosen in 1834 by the first reviser, von Alberti, in favour of Salamandroides, but all later authors, including von Alberti himself, followed Jaeger, who decided in 1837 to retain the name Mastodonsaurus. The established usage of Mastodonsaurus is preserved formally herein (nomen protectum). The names Batrachosaurus Fitzinger, 1837, and Labyrinthodon Owen, 1841 are unjustified replacement names of Mastodonsaurus. The names M. jaegeri von Meyer, 1832, S. jaegeri von Alberti, 1834 and M. salamandroides Jaeger, 1837 are junior homonyms and synonyms of M. jaegeri Holl, 1829, and M. giganteus (Jaeger, 1828), respectively. A recent attempt to replace the universally used Capitosauroidea Watson, 1919 by the unused and newly elevated Mastodonsauroidea Lydekker, 1885 is rejected. Two older synonyms of Mastodonsauridae Lydekker, 1885 (nomen protectum) are rejected as unavailable (Labyrinthodontidae von Meyer, 1842 ) and nomen oblitum (Batrachosauridae Fitzinger, 1843), respectively. The holotype of Mastodonsaurus giganteus is reinstated and valid on the basis of three diagnostic features present: the tripartite posterior rim of the parasphenoid, a laterally pushed suture between the parasphenoid and basipterygoid, and a wide slit‐like eustachian tube opening. Mastodonsaurus is known from specimens representing a continuous growth series, now also encompassing the lectotype of Mastodonsaurus jaegeri, which until rather recently stood isolated from other specimens as the largest find by far.     

The species of Hymenoptera described by Linnaeus in the genera Sphex, Chrysis, Vespa, Apis and Mutilla

Data are presented on the type-material representing the species described by Linnaeus in his genera Sphex, Chrysis, Vespa, Apis and Mutilla , The names here considered total 158; six are currently applied in the Hymenoptera Parasitica. Of the balance of 147, three are emendations and five are unavailable homonyms or names proposed in the synonymy of other species. Fifteen Linnaean names are here placed as synonyms. One name is attributed to an author other than Linnaeus, and live names remain species incertae sedis. The remainder, 118, are applied as valid names in die Hymenoptera Aculeata. Holotype specimens in London, Uppsala or Stockholm represent 60 names; 55 names are based on lectotype specimens of which 49 are here designated, two by other authors. One name is represented by a neotype specimen in Lund, and one by a lectotype figure. One non-aculeate species is based on syntypes. Specimens appear to be lost with respect to 25 names; three specimens in Uppsala may be the holotypes of a further three species.
Eight new combinations are made, and twelve new synonyms established; three further new combinations and three further new synonymies are suggested. A systematically arranged summary of species treated and of nomenclatural changes made is given. Nomenclatural changes affecting non-Linnaean names are included where relevant; lectotypes are designated for two non-Linnaean species.     

Catalog of the adelgids of the world (Hemiptera,Adelgidae)

A taxonomic and nomenclatural Catalogue of the adelgids (Hemiptera: Adelgidae) is presented. Six family-group names are listed, five being synonyms of Adelgidae. Twenty-two genus-group names, of which nine are subjectively valid and in use, are presented with their type species, etymology, and grammatical gender. One hundred and six species-group names are listed, of which 70 are considered subjectively valid.     

中国农业植物病原菌物常见种属名录

植物病原菌物是造成植物病害的主要病原物,可对生态安全、粮食安全、生物多样性造成重要威胁和灾害.近年来,菌物分类学的研究逐步深入,大量新分类单元被描述、高阶分类系统被修订和完善.在墨尔本和深圳两届国际植物学大会上,对《国际藻类、菌物和植物命名法规》中涉及菌物的部分做出了重大调整以实现"一菌一名".上述研究进展和改变对植物...     

Species names in phylogenetic nomenclature

Linnaean binomial nomenclature is logically incompatible with the phylogenetic nomenclature of de Queiroz and Gauthier (1992, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23:449-480): The former is based on the concept of genus, thus making this rank mandatory, while the latter is based on phylogenetic definitions and requires the abandonment of mandatory ranks. Thus, if species are to receive names under phylogenetic nomenclature, a different method must be devised to name them. Here, 13 methods for naming species in the context of phylogenetic nomenclature are contrasted with each other and with Linnaean binomials. A fundamental dichotomy among the proposed methods distinguishes those that retain the entire binomial of a preexisting species name from those that retain only the specific epithet. Other relevant issues include the stability, uniqueness, and ease of pronunciation of species names; their capacity to convey phylogenetic information; and the distinguishability of species names that are governed by a code of phylogenetic nomenclature both from clade names and from species names governed by the current codes. No method is ideal. Each has advantages and drawbacks, and preference for one option over another will be influenced by one's evaluation of the relative importance of the pros and cons for each. Moreover, sometimes the same feature is viewed as an advantage by some and a drawback by others. Nevertheless, all of the proposed methods for naming species in the context of phylogenetic nomenclature provide names that are more stable than Linnaean binomials.     

Ostrich,Southern Ostrich or Common Ostrich? The ‘eternal vexed question’ of English bird names and name changes in southern Africa through eight editions of Roberts field guides, 1940–2016

A set of stable simple common bird names helps non-ornithologist birders, who contribute to conservation by visiting protected areas and participating in citizen science projects. Changes in English bird names have caused discomfort in the local birding community, especially those that followed international standardisation of common bird names between 2000 and 2005. To understand the extent and nature of English bird name changes, an analysis was done of all southern African bird names through the eight editions of Roberts Birds of South/Southern Africa field guides published from 1940 to 2016. Of 813 species listed in both the first and the latest of the field guides, 453 (55.7%) had their names changed, among which 108 (13.3%) had changes in both the group name and the species epithet. The greatest single wave of changes (31.4%) occurred in the first ‘Roberts bird guide’ (the seventh field guide) in 2007, following international standardisation. Mean word and syllable counts of bird names also increased significantly in that edition. Name changes were associated with new authorships, taxonomic changes and use of geographic species epithets. There was a trend towards name stability for southern African endemic species. Further name changes should be kept to a minimum, shortening and simplifying wherever possible.     

Taxonomic revision of the genus Alternanthera (Amaranthaceae) in Italy

A taxonomic revision of the genus Alternanthera (Amaranthaceae) in Italy is here presented. Field surveys were carried out during the period 2007–2013. Thirty-six herbaria (both European and American) were consulted as well as extensive literature was analyzed. Four taxa are recognized, all of them to be considered aliens native to South America. Information about nomenclature (accepted names, main synonyms, and types), morphology, chromosome number, alien status (at national and regional levels), occurrence in Italy (at regional and provincial scale), ecology (preferential habitat, phenology, and elevation), taxonomical notes, and Italian vernacular names were provided for each taxon. A diagnostic key was given. For the nomenclatural purposes the generic name Alternanthera and its type was discussed, and the names A. paronychioides and A. pungens were studied and typified (lecto- and neotype, respectively) on specimens preserved at PH and P.