Hi Iqbal Hosen:

The follow Article and examples from Shenzhen Code should fulfill your query:

30.9. Publication on or after 1 January 1953 of an independent non-serial work stated to be a thesis submitted to a university or other institute of education for the purpose of obtaining a degree does not constitute effective publication unless the work includes an explicit statement (referring to the requirements of the Code for effective publication) or other internal evidence that it is regarded as an effective publication by its author or publisher.

Note 3. The presence of an International Standard Book Number (ISBN) or a statement of the name of the printer, publisher, or distributor in the original printed version is regarded as internal evidence that the work was intended to be effectively published.

Ex. 14. “Meclatis in Clematis; yellow flowering Clematis species – Systematic studies in Clematis L. (Ranunculaceae), inclusive of cultonomic aspects”, a “Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor … van Wageningen Universiteit” by Brandenburg, was effectively published on 8 June 2000 because it bears the ISBN 90-5808-237-7.

Ex. 15. The thesis “Comparative investigations on the life-histories and reproduction of some species in the siphoneous green algal genera Bryopsis and Derbesia” by Rietema, submitted to Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen in 1975, is stated to have been printed (“Druk”) by Verenigde Reproduktie Bedrijven, Groningen and was therefore effectively published.

Ex. 16. The dissertation “Die Gattung Mycena s.l.” by Rexer, submitted to the Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, was effectively published in 1994 because it bears the statement “Druck: Zeeb-Druck, Tübingen 7 (Hagelloch)”, referring to a commercial printer. The generic name Roridomyces Rexer and the names of new species in Mycena, such as M. taiwanensisRexer, are therefore validly published.

Ex. 17. The thesis by Demoulin, “Le genre Lycoperdon en Europe et en Amérique du Nord”, defended in 1971, was not effectively published because it does not contain internal evidence that it is regarded as such. Even if photocopies of it can be found in some libraries, names of new species of Lycoperdon, e.g. “L. americanum”, “L. cokeri”, and “L. estonicum”,introduced there, were validly published in the effectively published paper “Espèces nouvelles ou méconnues du genre Lycoperdon (Gastéromycètes)” (Demoulin in Lejeunia, ser. 2, 62: 1–28. 1972).

Ex. 18. The dissertation by Funk, “The Systematics of Montanoa Cerv. (Asteraceae)”, submitted to the Ohio State University in 1980, was not effectively published because it does not contain internal evidence that it is regarded as such. The same applies to facsimile copies of the dissertation printed from microfiche and distributed, on demand, from 1980 onward, by University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. The name Montanoa imbricata V. A. Funk, introduced in the dissertation, was validly published in the effectively published paper “The systematics of Montanoa (Asteraceae, Heliantheae)” (Funk in Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 36: 1–133. 1982).

Ex. 19. The dissertation “Revision der südafrikanischen Astereengattungen Mairia und Zyrphelis” submitted in 1990 by Ursula Zinnecker-Wiegand to the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (University of Munich) is not effectively published because it does not include an ISBN, the name of any printer or publisher or distributor, or any statement that it was intended to be effectively published under the Code, even though about 50 copies were distributed to other public libraries and all the other formalities for the publication of new taxa were met. The designations in the thesis became validly published names in the effectively published paper by Ortiz & Zinnecker-Wiegand (in Taxon 60: 1194–1198. 2011).

Dr Kanad Das at CAL works on Boletaceae

I would say no

Check shenzhen code

If this thesis is not properly published and thus available to everybody, then these taxa will be nomina nuda.

The names of the new taxa will not be treated as effectively published

Agreed with subir sir

Thanks all for sharing your informative knowledge.

Marc has pointed an important aspect which escaped my attention.

This might be applicable for new angiospermic taxa too after the Rio IBC.

Well, can we change the epithet name (while publishing in the peer reviewed journal) what was proposed in the dissertation with MycoBank or Index Fungorum number？

For example- B. rubrosquamosus sp. nov. (Proposed in a dissertation)

B. tenuis sp. nov. (Propose a new name in a peer-reviewed journal for replacing the old provisional name B. rubrosquamosus sp. nov ).

Thanks again Professor Dr. Marc Stadler and others.

Of course you can.

Even Roxburgh changed some of his manuscript names while publishing them.

See such an example in the givenlink

http://apps.kew.org/floraindica/searchOptions.do;jsessionid=1BEC8471A74141A06384055BD211F146#

Search for Bauhinia retusa

You will find the manuscript name given as Bauhinia emarginata

It is not necessary to change epithet name, you can use the same epithet in publication as in dissertation. The reason is that, formally (i.e. in line with Code), the name introduced in dissertation does not exist because the species was not validly described (nomen invalidum).

... but of course, if you want, you can give other name for your new species

Thesis or dissertation submitted to any institution as partial fulfillment of a degree do not fulfill the criteria of publication listed in ICZN. It fulfills only when it gets published by a publisher. So, names included in theses or dissertations can not be considered valid names. One may go through the Criteria of Publication in the ICZN.

Fungus comes under the purview of ICN. The most appropriate answer here is that of Marc.

The definition of publication will remain the same whether we talk about plants, animals or fungi.

For new New fungal taxa registration in a database like Mycobank or IF is mandatory. For plants it might come into effect after the Rio Code

But not by merely mentioning in a dissertation or thesis!

Hi Dr. Iqbal,

I fully agreed with Prof. Marc. You must get an accession number from either IF or MB. I have experience on this type of case. I had to submit my dissertation before I submit my monograph to FUDI. But if you check them in IF, you can see the names have been cited from FUDI. We must publish them in peer-reviewed journals.

Agree. In addition, in many MS/PhD disserations, we dont have proper descriptions of type species, culture details etc...and it is difficult to retrieve these data when needed at a later stge. I recently submitted a paper and this is the response I had from the Chief Editor (just for your information):

"Manuscripts describing new microbial taxa will only be considered acceptable if accompanied by details demonstrating that the proposed type strain(s) have been deposited in two recognised culture collections in two different countries."

Iqbal Hosen See attachment. I hope this may help you. Further more you just visit website of International Commission on the Taxonomy of Fungi (ICTF) at https://www.fungaltaxonomy.org/. Else Dr. mark has perfect answer.

Regards,

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) governs the nomenclature of fungi.