Important: the following provisions of Chapter F in the Shenzhen Code

are superseded by the San Juan Chapter F, which is published by May & al.

in IMA Fungus 10: 21. 2019; DOI:



NAMES of organisms treated as fungi



Article F.8

F.8.1. A name published prior to 1 January 2013 for a taxon of non-lichen-forming Ascomycota and Basidiomycota, with the intent or implied intent of applying to or being typified by one particular morph (e.g. anamorph or teleomorph; see Note 2), may be legitimate even if it otherwise would be illegitimate under Art. 52 on account of the protologue including a type (as defined in Art. 52.2) referable to a different morph. If the name is otherwise legitimate, it competes for priority (Art. 11.3 and 11.4).

Ex. 1. Penicillium brefeldianum B. O. Dodge (in Mycologia 25: 92. 1933) was described and based on a type with both the anamorph and teleomorph (and therefore necessarily typified by the teleomorph element alone under editions of the Code prior to the Melbourne Code of 2012). The combination Eupenicillium brefeldianum (B. O. Dodge) Stolk & D. B. Scott (in Persoonia 4: 400. 1967) for the teleomorph is legitimate. Penicillium dodgei Pitt (Gen. Penicillium: 117. 1980), typified by the anamorph in a dried culture “derived from Dodge’s type”, did not include the teleomorphic type of P. brefeldianum and therefore it too is legitimate. However, when considered a species of Penicillium, the correct name for all its states is P. brefeldianum.

Note 1. Except as provided in Art. F.8.1, names of fungi with mitotic asexual morphs (anamorphs) as well as a meiotic sexual morph (teleomorph) must conform to the same provisions of this Code as all other fungi.

Note 2. Editions of the Code prior to the Melbourne Code of 2012 provided for separate names for mitotic asexual morphs (anamorphs) of certain pleomorphic fungi and required that the name applicable to the whole fungus be typified by a meiotic sexual morph (teleomorph). Under the current Code, however, all legitimate fungal names are treated equally for the purposes of establishing priority, regardless of the life-history stage of the type (see also Art. F.2.1).

Ex. 2. Mycosphaerella aleuritidis (Miyake) S. H. Ou (in Sinensia 11: 183. 1940), when published as a new combination, was accompanied by a Latin diagnosis of the newly discovered teleomorph corresponding to the anamorph on which the basionym Cercospora aleuritidis Miyake (in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 26: 66. 1912) was typified. Under editions of the Code prior to the Melbourne Code of 2012, M. aleuritidis was considered to be the name of a new species with a teleomorph type, dating from 1940, and with authorship attributed solely to Ou. Under the current Code, the name is cited as originally published, M. aleuritidis (Miyake) S. H. Ou, and is typified by the type of the basionym.

Ex. 3. In the protologue of the teleomorph-typified Venturia acerina Plakidas ex M. E. Barr (in Canad. J. Bot. 46: 814. 1968) the anamorph-typified Cladosporium humile Davis (in Trans. Wisconsin Acad. Sci. 19: 702. 1919) was included as a synonym. Because it was published prior to 1 January 2013, the name V. acerina is not illegitimate, but C. humile is the earliest legitimate name at the rank of species.

Note 3. Names proposed simultaneously for separate morphs (e.g. anamorph and teleomorph) of a taxon of non-lichen-forming Ascomycota and Basidiomycota are necessarily heterotypic and are not therefore alternative names as defined by Art. 36.3.

Ex. 4. Hypocrea dorotheae Samuels & Dodd and Trichoderma dorotheae Samuels & Dodd were simultaneously validly published (in Stud. Mycol. 56: 112. 2006) for what the authors considered a single species with Samuels & Dodd 8657 (PDD 83839) as the holotype. Because these names were published before 1 January 2013 (see Art. F.8.1 and Note 2), and because the authors explicitly indicated that the name T. dorotheae was typified by the anamorphic element of PDD 83839, both names are validly published and legitimate. They are not alternative names as defined in Art. 36.3.