Recommendations of generic names in Diaporthales competing for protection or use

Authors

Amy Y. Rossman, Oregon State UniversityFollow
Gerard C. Adams, University of Nebraska - LincolnFollow
Paul F. Cannon, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
Lisa A. Castlebury, USDA, Agricultural Research Service
Pedro W. Crous, CBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Institute
Marieka Gryzenhout, University of the Free State
Walter M. Jaklitsch, University of Vienna
Luis C. Mejia, Institute for Scientific Research and High Technology Services
Dmitar Stoykov, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
Dhanushka Udayanga, USDA, Agricultural Research Service
Hermann Voglmayr, University of Vienna
Donald M. Walker, Findlay University

Document Type

Article

Date of this Version

2015

Citation

IMA Fungus. 2015 Jun; 6(1): 145–154.

Comments

© 2015 International Mycological Association

Open access

doi: 10.5598/imafungus.2015.06.01.09

Abstract

In advancing to one name for fungi, this paper treats generic names competing for use in the order Diaporthales (Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes) and makes a recommendation for the use or protection of one generic name among synonymous names that may be either sexually or asexually typified. A table is presented that summarizes these recommendations. Among the genera most commonly encountered in this order, Cytospora is recommended over Valsa and Diaporthe over Phomopsis. New combinations are introduced for the oldest epithet of important species in the recommended genus. These include Amphiporthe tiliae, Coryneum lanciforme, Cytospora brevispora, C. ceratosperma, C. cinereostroma, C. eugeniae, C. fallax, C. myrtagena, Diaporthe amaranthophila, D. annonacearum, D. bougainvilleicola, D. caricae-papayae, D. cocoina, D. cucurbitae, D. juniperivora, D. leptostromiformis, D. pterophila, D. theae, D. vitimegaspora, Mastigosporella georgiana, Pilidiella angustispora, P. calamicola, P. pseudogranati, P. stromatica, and P. terminaliae.