Against the naming of fungi 5

The use of molecular bar-coding and consensus on nomenclatural practices has encouraged optimism about the future of fungal taxonomy and systematics. There are, however, profound deficiencies in our understanding of fungal diversity and broader problems with the taxonomic enterprise that deserve greater attention. For 250 years mycologists have tried to reconcile fungal diversity with the Linnean fantasy of a divine order throughout nature that included unambiguous species. This effort has failed and today’s taxonomy rests on an unstable philosophical foundation. Rather than persisting with the present endeavour, it may be more fruitful to abandon the notion of fungal species pending further basic research. In the meantime, mycologists should consider tagging collections with digital codes and assigning these operational taxonomic units to higher taxonomic ranks whose objective reality is corroborated by strong phylogenetic evidence. a 2013 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The British Mycological Society. All rights reserved. In a provocative essay published in Nature Reviews Microbiology, Hibbett and Taylor suggest that fungal systematics has entered a phase of inquiry in which ‘a new age of enlightenment’ may be at hand (Hibbett & Taylor 2013). Their optimism is encouraged by the ongoing application of molecular techniques to identify and catalogue species, coupled with international resolution of disputed practices in fungal taxonomy. There are, in my opinion, some problems with this viewpoint. And, unless we highlight the profound deficiencies in our understanding of fungal diversity there is little chance of meaningful progress in mycological research. The use of molecular techniques in fungal taxonomy and systematics in the last 25 years has provided massive amounts of information, encouraged grant support, and complicated the jobs of classically-trained mycologists. Despite the disapproval of a few distinguished scholars, sequencing has become de rigueur and rendered the professions of fungal under the terms of the C edium, provided the orig 3. thor. Published by Elsevier taxonomist and systematist synonymous (Korf 2005). Evolutionary relationships within larger taxonomic groups have been clarified, organisms have been relocated from erroneous assignments, and new groups of fungi have been discovered. Mycologists have recorded a few hundred thousand Latin names for fungi and these are thought to refer to 70 000 or so separate species (Bass & Richards 2011). Guesses about the number of uncatalogued species push the estimated size of Kingdom Fungi beyond one million organisms. The impression of progress is muted, however, when we consider the biology of the fungi and the vagaries of research practice among the scientists that study them. The problems are longstanding. In the 1860s, Charles and Louis Ren e Tulasne identified one of the thorniest issues. In their magnificent three-volume treatise, Selecta Fungorum Carpologia, the brothers illustrated the developmental vicissitudes of ascomycetes that allowed single species to produce different types reative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted inal author and source are credited. Ltd on behalf of The BritishMycological Society. All rights reserved.