What mycologists should talk about when they are talking about the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants

Abstract

AbstractFungal metabarcoding of substrates such as soil, wood, and water are uncovering an unprecedented number of fungal species that do not seem to produce tangible morphological structures and that defy our best attempts at cultivation, thus falling outside of the ambit of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. The present study uses the new, ninth release of the species hypotheses of the UNITE database to show that species discovery through environmental sequencing vastly outpaces traditional, Sanger sequencing-based efforts in a strongly increasing trend over the last five years. Our findings challenge the present stance of the mycological community – that “the code” works fine and that these complications will somehow sort themselves out given enough time and a following wind – and suggest that we should be discussing not whether to allow DNA-based descriptions (typifications) of species and by extension higher ranks of fungi, but what the precise requirements for such DNA-based typifications should be. We submit a tentative list of such criteria for further discussion. However, the present authors fear that no waves of change will be lapping the shores of mycology for the foreseeable future, leaving the overwhelming majority of extant fungi without formal names and thus scientific and environmental agency. It is not clear to us who benefits from that, but neither fungi nor mycology are likely to be on the winning side.