Names have types not the taxa.

Taxa have circumscription.

names have no types, species, yes! (type species). Groups of organisms or circumscription (as you wish) can be organized, studied and reorganized into clades, groups, sections races, special forms, Subgeneric classifications, etc. and these SIM names are being discussed.

It was in this perspective of discussing the famous "single name nomenclature" and in the face of the international debate between taxonists of classical and molecular fungi that brought the subject to discussion. not to discuss concepts but rather the ways, vantages and disadvantages of the techniques in question.

"The move to single name nomenclature in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants"

And you, what is your opinion on the subject?

The difference of opinion is probably due to the fact that you use PhyloCode and what I said is the concept of ICN. What I said are not my words but of Late Dr. Dan H. Nicolson who served as nomenclature editor of Taxon for many years. I have still that letter preserved with me. What we write as 'Type species' is also wrong (see PDF of a book review by Dr. Dan H. Nicolson with the file name 1222697).

I work on the taxonomy of Indian Bauhinia and allied genera and have least knowledge on fungi, particularly DNA studies but I have some interest on fungal nomenclature.

There was a proposal in the 19th IBC in Shenzhen, China which is as follows (also see the attached file s33):

(308) Insert a new paragraph after Art. 8.5 as follows:

“8.6. In fungi, when DNA sequence data corresponding to a new taxon have been detected, but no physical specimen has been found to serve as the type of the name of the new taxon (Art. 8.1–8.4), the type may be composed of DNA sequence data deposited in a public

repository.”

It was not accepted but so far as I know referred to a Special-purpose Committee for looking into it.

I have accepted the outcomes of molecular studies in my work though sometimes overlapping characters come in the keys.

I believe for inclusion of anything in the Code one has to see that the Article should not be inconvenient to the many. I also believe that facilities of molecular studies are still not available to many of the botanists, even in developing countries. Get it done outsourced is not too cheap and the quality of the work might not always be good.

In my opinion one should give more time to think about pros and cons of accepting voucherless types before final implementation.

I have attached some relevant publications which might be interesting. However, it is probable that you have already seen some of them and certainly article9.pdf.

Dear, Subir Bandyopadhyay

The difference of opinion is very welcome. Thank you for your assignments and the sharing of material that I will analyze with discretion.

You cited the name of an important researcher of the classical taxonomy. In Brazil, I work with researchers from both sides (classical taxonomists such as Dr. Luiz Bezerra, Edna Dora M. N Luz and the molecular phylogeny Aristoteles Goes-Neto and others ...

I like it and I find it productive to discuss it.

greetings

Most welcome. Dr. Angela Maria Studart Da Fonseca Vaz who works on Brazilian Bauhinias is personally known to me. In this regard I will be waiting eagerly for the views of other taxonomists with specialization in fungal nomenclature.

Best of luck in your research work.