59.1. In non lichen-forming ascomycetous and basidiomycetous fungi (including Ustilaginales) with mitotic asexual morphs (anamorphs) as well as a meiotic sexual morph (teleomorph), the correct name covering the holomorph (i.e., the species in all its morphs) is the earliest legitimate name typified, or epitypified under Art. 59.7, by an element representing the teleomorph, i.e. the morph characterized by the production of asci/ascospores, basidia/basidiospores, teliospores, or other basidium-bearing organs.
59.2. For a binary name to qualify as a name of a holomorph, not only must its type specimen, or its epitype specimen under Art. 59.7, be teleomorphic, but also the protologue must include a description or diagnosis of this morph (or be so phrased that the possibility of reference to the teleomorph cannot be excluded) (see also Art. 59.7).
59.3. If these requirements are not fulfilled, the name is that of a form-taxon and is applicable only to the anamorph represented by its type, as described or referred to in the protologue. The accepted taxonomic disposition of the type of the name determines the application of the name, no matter whether the genus to which a subordinate taxon is assigned by the author(s) is holomorphic or anamorphic.
59.4. Irrespective of priority, names with a teleomorphic type, or epitype (Art. 59.7) take precedence over names with only an anamorphic type when the both types are judged to belong to the same holomorphic taxon. Priority of competing teleomorphic typified or epitypified names follows Principle III except that teleomorphic typified names published before 1 January 2007 take precedence over anamorphic typified names subsequently epitypified after 1 January 2007 by teleomorphs.
59.5. The provisions of this article shall not be construed as preventing the publication and use of binary names for form-taxa when it is thought necessary or desirable to refer to anamorphs alone.
59.6. As long as there is direct and unambiguous evidence for the deliberate introduction of a new morph judged by the author(s) to be correlated with the morph typifying a purported basionym, and this evidence is strengthened by fulfilment of all requirements in Art. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 for valid publication of a name of a new taxon, any indication such as "comb. nov." or "nom. nov." is regarded as a formal error, and the name introduced is treated as that of a new taxon, and attributed solely to the author(s) thereof. When only the requirements for valid publication of a new combination (Art. 33 and 34) have been fulfilled, the name is accepted as such and based, in accordance with Art. 7.4, on the type of the declared or implicit basionym.
59.7. Where a teleomorph has been discovered for a fungus previously known only as an anamorph and for which there is no existing legitimate name for the holomorph, an epitype exhibiting the teleomorph stage may be designated for the hitherto anamorphic name even when there is no hint of the teleomorph in the protologue of that name.
59A.1. When a new morph of a fungus is described, it should be published either as a new taxon (e.g. gen. nov., sp. nov., var. nov.) the name of which has a teleomorphic type, or as a new anamorph (anam. nov.) the name of which has an anamorphic type.
59A.2. When in naming a new morph of a fungus the epithet of the name of a different, earlier described morph of the same fungus is used, the new name should be designated as the name of a new taxon or anamorph, as the case may be, but not as a new combination based on the earlier name.
59A.3. Authors should avoid the publication and use of binary names for anamorphs when the teleomorphic connection is firmly established and there is no practical need for separate names (as e.g. in rust fungi and members of the Trichocomaceae).
(c) 2006, by International Association for Plant Taxonomy. This page last updated 16.03.2007 .