The Amsterdam declaration on fungal nomenclature

Mycotaxon

Volumn 116, Issue , 2011, Pages 491-500

  Hawksworth, David L ^a   Crous, Pedro W ^a   Redhead, Scott A ^a   Reynolds, Don R ^a   Samson, Robert A ^a   Seifert, Keith A ^a   Taylor, John W ^a   Wingfield, Michael J ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Anamorph; Candidate species; MycoCode; Pleomorphic fungi; Teleomorph

Indexed keywords

FUNGI;

EID: 80052958791     PISSN: 00934666     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5248/116.491     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Gams W. 2005. Towards a single scientific name for species of fungi: a rebuttal. Inoculum 56(6): 1-5.
2. Gams W, Jaklitsch W, Kirschner R. 2010. Proposals to modify Article 59 in order to harmonize it with present practice. Taxon 59: 1929-1930.
3. Hawksworth DL. 2005. Limitation of dual nomenclature for pleomorphic fungi. Taxon 53: 596-598.
4. W, Wingfield MJ. 2010. Proposals to make the pre-publication deposit of key nomenclatural information in a recognized repository a requirement for valid publication of organisms treated as fungi under the Code. Taxon 59: 660-662; Mycotaxon 111: 514-519.
5. Hawksworth DL, Sutton BC. 1974. Comments on Weresub, Malloch and Pirozynski's proposal for Article 59. Taxon 23: 659-661.
6. McNeill J, Barrie FR, Burdet HM, Demoulin V, Hawksworth DL, Marhold K, Nicolson DH, Prado J, Silva PC, Skog J, Wiersema J, Turland N (eds). 2006. International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Vienna Code) adopted by the Seventeenth International Botanical Congress, 2005. [Regnum Vegetabile Vol. 146.] Pp. xviii + 568. Ruggell: A. R. G. Ganter Verlag.
7. McNeill J, Turland NJ. 2011. Synopsis of Proposals on botanical nomenclature - Melbourne 2011: a review of the proposals concerning the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature submitted to the XVIII International Botanical Congress. Taxon 60: 243-286.
8. Norvell LL. 2011. Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi: 17. Taxon 60: 610-613.
9. Norvell LL, Hawksworth DL, Petersen RH, Redhead SA. 2010. IMC9 Edinburgh Nomenclature Sessions. Mycotaxon 113: 503-511; IMA Fungus 1: 143-147; Taxon 59: 1867-1868.
10. Ozerskaya SM, Kochkina GA, Ivanushkina NE. 2010. Fungal diversity in GenBank: problems and possible solutions. Inoculum 61(4): 1-4.
11. Redhead SA. 2010a. Report on the Special Committee on the Nomenclature of Fungi with a Pleomorphic Life Cycle. Taxon 59: 1863-1866.
12. Redhead SA. 2010b. Proposals to define the new term 'teleotype', to rename Chapter VI, and to modify Article 59 to limit dual nomenclature and to remove conflicting examples and recommendations. Taxon 59: 1927-1929.
13. Rossman AY, Samuels GJ. 2005. Towards a single scientific name for species of fungi. Inoculum 56(3): 3-6.
14. Rossman A[Y], Seifert K[A] (eds). 2011. Phylogenetic revision of taxonomic concepts in the Hypocreales and other Ascomycota - a tribute to Gary J. Samuels. Studies in Mycology 68: 1-256.
15. Seifert KA (ed). 2003. Has dual nomenclature for fungi run its course? The Article 59 debate. Mycotaxon 88: 493-508. (Pubitemid 38005604)
16. Seifert KA, Gams W, Crous PW, Samuels GL (eds). 2000. Molecules, morphology and classification: towards monophyletic genera in the ascomycetes. Studies in Mycology 45: 1-230.
17. Weresub LK, Pirozynski KA. 1979. Pleomorphism of fungi as treated in the history of mycology and nomenclature. In: The Whole Fungus: the sexual-asexual synthesis (B Kendrick, ed) 1: 17-30. Ottawa: National Museum of Natural Sciences.