- Email: [email protected]
Typification of Ascotricha species described by L. M. Ames
[ 317 ] Trans. Br. mycol, Soc. 57 (2) 317-324 (1971) Printed in Great Britain
TYPIFICATION OF ASCOTRICHA SPECIES DESCRIBED BY L. M. AMES By P. L. LENTZ Plant Science Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Beltsville, Maryland 20705 D. L. HAWKSWORTH Commonwealth Mycological Institute, Kew AND
(With Plates 15 and 16) Lectotypes are designated for three of the species of Ascotricha Berk. described by L. M. Ames (A. arcuata, A. congoensis and A. guamensis) and the holotype of A. xylina Ames is discussed. A study of Ames's specimens and original pencil drawings of A. ascuaia and A. congoensis shows that in each instance the description and published illustration does not apply to the type material of the taxon it purports to describe, but that it actually applies to the type material of the other taxon. Because of the confusion between the concepts of A. arcuata and A. congoensis as published and those demonstrated by the type material and original pencil drawings it is proposed to reject both these names as they constitute a source of error (Art. 69) and because they can be interpreted as not validly published (Art. 32).
L. M. Ames described four species of Ascotricha Berk., including A. arcuata and A. congoensis in his Monograph of the Chaetomiaceae (Ames, 1963), and A. guamensis and A. xylina in an earlier publication (Ames, 195I). Ames stated in his monograph that the type of each species was 'deposited in the U.S. National Herbarium, Washington, D.C.'. This was in anticipation that type specimens would be filed in the mycological herbarium of the National Fungus Collections at Beltsville (BPI), which was tentatively scheduled for transfer to the U.S. Natural History Museum in Washington. The fungus specimens of the U.S. National Herbarium are included among those of BPI, and all remain at Beltsville. Type material of Ames's four species should be present together with his notes, correspondence, and miscellaneous records. However, with the exception of some microscope-slide preparations and pencil drawings, no type or other specimen at Beltsville conforms precisely to data provided for these species in Ames's monograph. The purpose of this note is to discuss typification of Ames's four species of Ascotricha on the basis of material extant at Beltsville.
Transactions British Mycological Society ASCOTRICHA ARCUATA Ames, A Monograph of the Chaetomiaceae, p. 48, 1963 A. arcuata is represented in BPI by herbarium specimens, slides and pencil drawings of a fungus for which Ames gave the following typification data: 'Type location: Fort Belvoir, Va. Habitat: From tap water; on decaying vegetation. Distribution: Known only from type locality.' This relatively imprecise method of designating types, and other specimens that Ames collected, is found throughout the monograph. In many instances, one may infer that such data refer to single original cultures, or at least to cultures prepared from single collections of substratum. However, Ames's concept of typification apparently permitted him also to obtain several isolations from a geographical area, or from several substrata in a particular area, and to describe a new species based on this material collectively, or on any element of it as the type. According to Hitchcock (1905), 'There are many original descriptions ... in which no specimens are cited, but instead the locality or range may be given. It then becomes necessary to consult the author's herbarium or the herbarium in which his plants are deposited.' When Ames's herbarium is consulted, no reference to any Ascotricha from decaying vegetation can be found. Still, the impression persists that more than one isolation of A. arcuata was made at Fort Belvoir. In the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ed. Lanjouw et al. 1966, and hereafter referred to as the Code) a Guide For The Determination of Types specifies that: 'I. The choice made by the original author, if definitely expressed at the time of the original publication of the name of the taxon, is final. If he included only one element, that one must always be accepted as the holotype (Arts. 7, 9, 10).' The Guide further states that: '3. A lectotype may be chosen only when an author failed to designate a holotype, or when ... the type has been lost or destroyed (Art. 7, Note 3).' Ames's material and drawings of A. arcuata are labelled variously as 'From ERDL Tap Water', 'ERDL Tap,' 'Tap ERDL', 'Accotink Tap', and simply 'Tap'. ERDL refers to the Engineer Research and Development Laboratories at Fort Belvoir, and Accotink specifies the locality of a sewage treatment plant at Fort Belvoir. All of Ames's specimens, slides, and drawings with the ERDL designation are now at Beltsville, where they have been assigned number AA 6. This number is one of a series employed specifically for material in the Ames collection. The pencil drawing of an Ascotricha from Accotink is designated separately as AA 6a because it represents the same kind of ambiguous record as the habitat data. Because of these anomalous references, Ames's typification is modified here so that all of the material with collection number AA 6 becomes the lectotype. Whether there are syntypes is conjectural. In the Code, Art. 7 states that, 'A nomenclatural type (typus) is that constituent element of a taxon to which the name of a taxon is permanently attached ....' Collection notations consistent with the original typification of A. arcuata are recorded in Ames's hand on the various specimens, slides, and pencil drawings of AA 6, so there can be no misunderstanding about the nature of the material. However, Ascotricha AA 6 does not resemble
Ascotricha. P. L. Lentz and D. L. Hawksworth
319
Ames's published description of A. arcuata. Moreover, the pencil drawings of AA 6, when reproduced in Ames's Plate 29, appear as figures 20-24 and 26-.,.28, which are captioned as A. congoensis. Figure 25, from the pencil drawing labelled' Accotink Tap', also is published as A. congoensis. (cr. our Pis. 15 and 16). The nomenclatural type of A. arcuata is now definitely ascertained and readily correlated with Ames's pencil drawings. The same probably may be said of the nomenclatural type of A. congoensis. Howe ver, when the descriptions and illustrations ofthese two species were published, they were mutually transposed. The fungus that Ames named A. arcuata is typified by specimens from Fort Belvoir (AA 6), which are characterized by pencil drawings of ERDL material. However, the printed description and published illustrations associated with A. arcuata in Ames's monograph are not those derived from ERDL material (AA 6) but from the type material and pencil drawings of the Congo Ascotricha. An added element of mystification (since all of Ames's Ascotricha material both from Fort Belvoir and the Belgian Congo is now in the collection at Beltsville) is that the spore measurements that Ames published do not agree with those of any specimens that now seem referable to either A. arcuata or A. congoensis. In the description under the name A. congoensis (but actually characterizing the ERDL type of A. arcuata), Ames gave measurements of 11'0-12'6 x 7-7'5 pm for the ascospores, which he described as ovoid. Ascospore dimensions of the ERDL Ascotricha now are 7'5-8'5 x 6'5-7'5 pm (c. 4'0 pm wide in lateral view), and the spores are discoid. Ames's measurements of the conidia are 7'5-8'0 x 5"4-5'7 pm, and ours are 5'0-7'0 x 3'0-4'0 usn. Despite these discrepancies, Ames's description of A , congoensis obviously is based on the ERDL material that constitutes the type of A. arcuata. However unsatisfactorily, Ames designated either a holotype or possibly several type elements for A. arcuata, and Art. 7 of th e Code stipulates that the name of a taxon is permanently associated with its nomenclatural type. Thus, the nomenclatural type of A. arcuata is inextricably bound to the name even though it is associated in Ames's publication with a description of a different fungus. This is a very confusing circumstance, which could lead to the rejection of the name A. arcuata under the provisions of the Code, Art. 69: ' A name must be rejected if it is used in different senses and so has become a long-persistent source of error.' Ames, of course, has already used the name in different senses, for he applied it to an original description that characterizes a fungus not in the same taxon as the nomenclatural type of A. arcuata. Rejection of a name must be weighed against the clear intent of nomenclature, which is the preservation of names whenever feasible. According to Gleason (1947), ' T hose who frequently turn to the pages of the Code ... are fully aware that there are ... nom enclatural problems connected with typification . . .which are not fully met. In all such cases, the rules should be interpreted to favor the maintenance of a name rather than its change.' In the same vein, Rogers (1949) quoted G. R. Bisby as having written (in litt.): 'A taxonomist should make every effort he conscientiously can to keep in use a name .. . that has many users, actual or potential.' The
320
Transactions British Mycological Society
Preamble to the Code advocates' the avoidance of the useless creation of names', but it also includes a statement about 'avoiding and rejecting the use of names which may cause error or ambiguity'. Rejection of A. arcuata on the basis of Article 6g would preclude its use for any species. To summarize therefore-( I) A. arcuata was named by Ames on the basis of fungus material obtained from Fort Belvoir; (2) whether the data given for the type locality represent a single original isolation of A. arcuata or more than one is not known, but all of the material now known to exist represents a single species; (3) in order to eliminate any vestige of question about the implications of Ames's typification, the element from ERDL tap water (AA 6) is designated as the lectotype of A. arcuata; (4) material from decaying vegetation (not noted as such among Ames's collections) and from Accotink tap water (AA 6a), if they represent isolations separate from that of AA 6, are regarded as syntypes; (5) the description that accompanies the name and type designation for A. arcuata is not based on either the nomenclatural type or on any other specimens of A. arcuata, but it actually is a description of the taxon represented by the nomenclatural type of A. congoensis; (6) therefore, the name and designated nomenclatural type of A. arcuata, as published originally by Ames, are not accompanied by a description of the taxon represented by that name and type. Designation of a type, although an essential part of the type description, cannot be considered a type description in itself. This principle is of long standing, as evidenced by Sudworth's (1897) quotation from the laws adopted at the Paris Congress of 1867: 'A species announced in a work under generic and specific names, but without any information as to its characters, can not be considered as being published.' In a discussion concerned with the same Congress, Ward (1895) wrote that: 'The fundamental principle of these laws was priority of publication with adequate descriptions.... ' The present Code carries essentially the same language, and the intent ofArt. 32 is unmistakable: 'In order to be validly published, a name of a taxon must ... (3) be accompanied by a description or a diagnosis of the taxon.... ' Quite clearly, this article does not say that the description may be of a taxon; instead, it says that the description must apply to the taxon under consideration. Since the description that accompanies the name and typification of A. arcuata is a description of a different taxon, the name A. arcuata is published without being accompanied by a description that characterizes its nomenclatural type. This form of publication might be considered as invalid because it does not fulfill the requirements of Art. 32. Although the description under A. arcuata does not apply precisely to that species, perhaps many ofits words and phrases could be utilized; probably a few different adjectives and measurements could be inserted; and we should then have an emended description that would adequately characterize the taxon. One may even reason that the emendation could consist ofthe wholesale substitution of the description under the name A. congoensis for the one presently under A. arcuata. This is the key point that reveals the fallaciousness of any such substitution. Ames attempted to describe A. arcuata, but he actually described A. congoensis. If, somewhere among the descriptions of various species of Ascotricha, one description corresponds to
Ascotricha. P. L. Lentz and D. L. Hawksworth
321
the type of A. areuata, that description nevertheless was published under another name. According to the Code, the publication of each new taxon must adhere to the regulations for valid publication entirely on its own merits. Thus, an appropriate, or misplaced, or emendable description published in association with the typification of some other taxon cannot affect the publication validity of any name other than the one under which it is published. A description of a taxon may be emended, but descriptions of different taxa cannot be arbitrarily substituted for one another. Art. 51 states that, 'An alteration of the diagnostic characters ... of a taxon does not warrant a change in its name.... ' However, additional stipulations and examples show that this Article refers to emendations of descriptions resulting from taxonomic modifications. Neither here nor anywhere else in the Code is any provision made for arbitrary substitutions ofdescriptions published under names of different taxa. The involutions ofthe preceding discussion simply mirror the distortions in Ames's presentation of A. arcuata. Any attempt here to remedy obvious deficiencies in the original publication of the species seems futile. Ames's A. areuata may be regarded as a rejected name under the provisions of Article 69, and may also be considered as not validly published because it does not entirely conform to the requirements of Art. 32. This nomenclatural note was not initiated with any intention of putting related taxonomic problems in order, and the identity ofthe ERDL Ascotricha and others from Fort Belvoir are discussed further by Hawksworth (1971).
ASCOTRICHA CONGOENSIS Ames, A Monograph of the Chaetomiaceae P·48, 1963 According to Ames, A. congoensis was isolated from 'samples of animal dung and litter' collected in the Belgian Congo by J. Meyer (Instit. Carnoy, Louvain, Belgium) in 1958. Material of Ascotricha obtained from the Belgian Congo and now at Beltsville consists of five herbarium specimens (AA 19), four slides numbered AA 5, and two numbered AA 4. None of the specimens or slides is labelled as A. congoensis. Probably they represent at least two or three separate collections, but all seem to show characters of the same species. The heterogeneity of collection records in this instance is similar to that of A. arcuata, but more definitely ascertained. Slides and drawings filed as AA 4 bear also the original Meyer collection number 199 and represent a collection made on 30 September 1955. One of the slides, included as AA 5, is dated 24 February 1956. No material bears the date 1958, but Meyer, (in litt.) informs us that the type collection of A. congoensis was sent to Ames probably early in 1958. Since material of AA 4 and AA 5 must have been collected before 1958, AA 19 is left as the probable type of A. congoensis. The fact that material of AA 19 consists of herbarium specimens supports this conjecture, as most of Ames's herbarium preparations are types. None of the material from the Belgian Congo closely resembles Ames's published description and drawings labelled as A. congoensis. Instead, it represents the other halfof the confusion between A. arcuata and A. congoensis. Just as the typification of A. arcuata was accompanied by a description
322
Transactions British Mycological Society
of A. congoensis, the typification of A. congoensis was published together with a description of A. arcuata. This becomes clear when published drawings and the description are compared with herbarium specimens and other original material. The pencil drawings that Ames labelled' Congo Belgae' are found in his monograph (Plate 29, figures 1-9) under the name A. arcuata (cr. our PIs. 15, 16), Measurements of ascospores and conidia that Ames included for A. arcuata (thus actually derived from material of A. congoensis) are 13'0-16'3 x 7'3-12.8 pm and 8'5-10'1 x 6'5-7'0 usn, respectively. In the material from the Belgian Congo, ascospores now have dimensions of 7'5-10'0 x 6'5-8'0 pm (c, 4'0-5'0 pm wide in lateral view) and conidia are 4'5-7'5 x 2'5-4'5 ust: The discrepancies in these measurements seem beyond explanation, but the material from the Congo agrees in other attributes with the description that Ames misplaced under A, arcuata. Ames's typification data and accessary records leave some pertinent questions unanswered. Accordingly, we believe that designation of a lectotype is desirable and that herbarium specimens AA 19 are suitable as the lectotype of A. congoensis. As was reluctantly done with A. arcuata, A. congoensis may be regarded as a rejected name under the provisions of Art. 69 and may also be considered as not validly published as defined in Art. 32. The nomenclature and taxonomy of the Ascotricha from the Belgian Congo are discussed further by Hawksworth (197 I).
ASCOTRICHA GUAMENSIS Ames, Mycologia 43, p. 30, 1951 In both his original publication (1951) and monograph (1963), Ames stated that the original culture of A. guamensis was White and Yeager's isolate known as Guam number 3 and originally obtained from cardboard boxes in Guam, Preparations with these data have been given the number AA 2 at Beltsville. Ames sent a subculture of Guam number 3 to the American Type Culture Collection where it is maintained as ATCC I 1219. Herbarium specimens prepared from subcultures of ATCC I 12 I 9 are deposited in the National Fungus Collections. These herbarium specimens are designated as the lectotype of A. guamensis. Designation of a lectotype is especially important because Ames may have based his original description and illustrations on more than a single isolate. Three slides that Ames prepared are regarded as isotypes, although two also include abundant fragments of a Chaetomium. Ames's description of A. guamensis is consistent with our observations of the type material. Although Ames stated that this species is known only from the type collection, a herbarium specimen and four slide preparations, now in BPI as AA 7, were labelled by Ames as Biak number 1. Drawings of the Biak fungus appear with Ames's original description as figures 9-1 I and 13-15 and these were reproduced under the same numbers in plate 28 of his monograph. Only figure 12 (and perhaps figure 8) are based on pencil drawings that Ames labelled as Guam number 3 (AA 2). Biak Island is about 1000 miles south of Guam. Nevertheless, information not originally available may subsequently have shown Ames that Guam number 3 and Biak number I represent a single collection. Therefore, Ames's statement
Ascotricha. P. L. Lentz and D. L. Hawksworth
323
concerning typification is accepted to the extent that Guam number 3 (AA 2) is regarded as the lectotype. Still, the Biak material is kept under a separate number in order to maintain the integrity of Ames's unpublished records. This seems all the more pertinent because correspondence between Ames and W. L. White of the Philadelphia Quartermaster Depot reveals that fungus cultures wer e received by White, and presumably forwarded to Ames, from both Gu am and Biak.
ASCOTRICHA XYLINA Ames, Mycologia 43, p . 29,1951 In the National Fungus Collections, A. xylina is represented by eight slide preparations consisting of material having characteristics that correspond to those in Ames's description and illustrations. Portions of Ames's pencil drawings were reproduced as figures 1-7 in the original publication (1951) and in plate 28 of the monograph. Ames designated the type as Manila number 5 of White and Yeager, and all such material in BPI has been coded by number AA 3. Correspondence indicates that Ames sent a specimen to W. W. Ray at the University of Nebraska in 1951, but this specimen cannot be found. The slide preparations in BPI, to our knowledge, evidently constitute the entire portion of the type now in existence. Collectively, these slides are the holotype. Ames described the spores of A. xylina as ovate and compressed. Many are cymbiform, with one side concave and the other markedly convex, but this shape probably results from partial collapse of the spores in the mounting medium that Ames used. Nevertheless, the cymbiform appearance is so constant as to be characteristic of the species. A generic feature of Ascotricha is the girdle that surrounds the narrow rim between opposite faces of the spores (Hawksworth, 197I ). In A. xylina this characteristic is relatively obscure, but an inconspicuous girdle may be seen on at least some of the spores. We are very grateful to Mr F. C. Deighton and Dr B. C. Sutton for advice and discussions on the nomenclatural problems discussed in this paper. REFERENCES
AMES, L. M . (1951). New species of cellulose decomposing fungi. III. Mycologia43, 29-33. AMES, L. M. (1963). A monograph of the Chaetomiaceac. U.S. Army Research andDevelopment Series, no. 2, i-ix, 1-125. GLEASON, H . A. (1947). The preservation of well-known binomials. Phytologiaa, 201-212. HAWKSWORTH, D. L. (1971). A revision of the genus Ascotricha Berk. Mycological Papers 126 (in press). HITCHCOCK, A. S. (1905). Nomenclatural typ e specimens of plant species. Science, N.r. 21, 828-832. LANJOUW, J. et al. (ed.) (1966). International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. Regnum Vegetabile 46, 1-402. ROGERS, D. P. (1949). Nomina conser vanda proposita and nomina confusa -fungi. Farlowia 3, 425-493. SUDWORTH, G. B. (1897). Nomenclature of the arborescent flora of the U .S. USDA Division Forestry Bulletin. no. 14, Appendix, 341-356. WARD, L. F. (1895)' The nomenclature question. Torrey Botanical Club Bulletin 22,3083 29.
Transactions British Mycological Society EXPLANATION OF PLATES
15
AND
16
PLATE 15
Ink drawings for Ames's Monograph plate 29. Figures l-g were labelled in the monograph as A. arcuata [Fort Belvoir]; figures 20-29 were labelled as A. congoensis [Congo Belgae]. PLATE 16
Pencil drawings used by Ames in preparing the ink drawings for plate 29. Figures l-g were labelled as Congo Belgae [A. congoensis]; figures 20-29 were labelled as Tap [Accotink or ERDL= Fort Belvoir; A. arcuata]. Figures I and 28 are not shown here. Magnifications not standardized.
(AcceptedfoT publication 6 May 1971)
Trans. Br. mycol. Soc.
Vol. 57.
Plate IS
(Facing p. 324)
Trans. Br. mycol. Soc.
Vol. 57. Plate 16
.u
27
1/1-
'!}? /-1 "1'/
~~~
C'
~
t
--r .
't--=:
elf
-\
(
!
...
22 '3'L r
23
l'
'" ('
- j'
25
I)
20 8
\-
, I
,I
)
c.,r,
")~") /
--
3
7
/:
24
4
., 5
21
9
6
2
)
)
TYPIFICATION OF ASCOTRICHA SPECIES DESCRIBED BY L. M. AMES By P. L. LENTZ Plant Science Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Beltsville, Maryland 20705 D. L. HAWKSWORTH Commonwealth Mycological Institute, Kew AND
(With Plates 15 and 16) Lectotypes are designated for three of the species of Ascotricha Berk. described by L. M. Ames (A. arcuata, A. congoensis and A. guamensis) and the holotype of A. xylina Ames is discussed. A study of Ames's specimens and original pencil drawings of A. ascuaia and A. congoensis shows that in each instance the description and published illustration does not apply to the type material of the taxon it purports to describe, but that it actually applies to the type material of the other taxon. Because of the confusion between the concepts of A. arcuata and A. congoensis as published and those demonstrated by the type material and original pencil drawings it is proposed to reject both these names as they constitute a source of error (Art. 69) and because they can be interpreted as not validly published (Art. 32).
L. M. Ames described four species of Ascotricha Berk., including A. arcuata and A. congoensis in his Monograph of the Chaetomiaceae (Ames, 1963), and A. guamensis and A. xylina in an earlier publication (Ames, 195I). Ames stated in his monograph that the type of each species was 'deposited in the U.S. National Herbarium, Washington, D.C.'. This was in anticipation that type specimens would be filed in the mycological herbarium of the National Fungus Collections at Beltsville (BPI), which was tentatively scheduled for transfer to the U.S. Natural History Museum in Washington. The fungus specimens of the U.S. National Herbarium are included among those of BPI, and all remain at Beltsville. Type material of Ames's four species should be present together with his notes, correspondence, and miscellaneous records. However, with the exception of some microscope-slide preparations and pencil drawings, no type or other specimen at Beltsville conforms precisely to data provided for these species in Ames's monograph. The purpose of this note is to discuss typification of Ames's four species of Ascotricha on the basis of material extant at Beltsville.
Transactions British Mycological Society ASCOTRICHA ARCUATA Ames, A Monograph of the Chaetomiaceae, p. 48, 1963 A. arcuata is represented in BPI by herbarium specimens, slides and pencil drawings of a fungus for which Ames gave the following typification data: 'Type location: Fort Belvoir, Va. Habitat: From tap water; on decaying vegetation. Distribution: Known only from type locality.' This relatively imprecise method of designating types, and other specimens that Ames collected, is found throughout the monograph. In many instances, one may infer that such data refer to single original cultures, or at least to cultures prepared from single collections of substratum. However, Ames's concept of typification apparently permitted him also to obtain several isolations from a geographical area, or from several substrata in a particular area, and to describe a new species based on this material collectively, or on any element of it as the type. According to Hitchcock (1905), 'There are many original descriptions ... in which no specimens are cited, but instead the locality or range may be given. It then becomes necessary to consult the author's herbarium or the herbarium in which his plants are deposited.' When Ames's herbarium is consulted, no reference to any Ascotricha from decaying vegetation can be found. Still, the impression persists that more than one isolation of A. arcuata was made at Fort Belvoir. In the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ed. Lanjouw et al. 1966, and hereafter referred to as the Code) a Guide For The Determination of Types specifies that: 'I. The choice made by the original author, if definitely expressed at the time of the original publication of the name of the taxon, is final. If he included only one element, that one must always be accepted as the holotype (Arts. 7, 9, 10).' The Guide further states that: '3. A lectotype may be chosen only when an author failed to designate a holotype, or when ... the type has been lost or destroyed (Art. 7, Note 3).' Ames's material and drawings of A. arcuata are labelled variously as 'From ERDL Tap Water', 'ERDL Tap,' 'Tap ERDL', 'Accotink Tap', and simply 'Tap'. ERDL refers to the Engineer Research and Development Laboratories at Fort Belvoir, and Accotink specifies the locality of a sewage treatment plant at Fort Belvoir. All of Ames's specimens, slides, and drawings with the ERDL designation are now at Beltsville, where they have been assigned number AA 6. This number is one of a series employed specifically for material in the Ames collection. The pencil drawing of an Ascotricha from Accotink is designated separately as AA 6a because it represents the same kind of ambiguous record as the habitat data. Because of these anomalous references, Ames's typification is modified here so that all of the material with collection number AA 6 becomes the lectotype. Whether there are syntypes is conjectural. In the Code, Art. 7 states that, 'A nomenclatural type (typus) is that constituent element of a taxon to which the name of a taxon is permanently attached ....' Collection notations consistent with the original typification of A. arcuata are recorded in Ames's hand on the various specimens, slides, and pencil drawings of AA 6, so there can be no misunderstanding about the nature of the material. However, Ascotricha AA 6 does not resemble
Ascotricha. P. L. Lentz and D. L. Hawksworth
319
Ames's published description of A. arcuata. Moreover, the pencil drawings of AA 6, when reproduced in Ames's Plate 29, appear as figures 20-24 and 26-.,.28, which are captioned as A. congoensis. Figure 25, from the pencil drawing labelled' Accotink Tap', also is published as A. congoensis. (cr. our Pis. 15 and 16). The nomenclatural type of A. arcuata is now definitely ascertained and readily correlated with Ames's pencil drawings. The same probably may be said of the nomenclatural type of A. congoensis. Howe ver, when the descriptions and illustrations ofthese two species were published, they were mutually transposed. The fungus that Ames named A. arcuata is typified by specimens from Fort Belvoir (AA 6), which are characterized by pencil drawings of ERDL material. However, the printed description and published illustrations associated with A. arcuata in Ames's monograph are not those derived from ERDL material (AA 6) but from the type material and pencil drawings of the Congo Ascotricha. An added element of mystification (since all of Ames's Ascotricha material both from Fort Belvoir and the Belgian Congo is now in the collection at Beltsville) is that the spore measurements that Ames published do not agree with those of any specimens that now seem referable to either A. arcuata or A. congoensis. In the description under the name A. congoensis (but actually characterizing the ERDL type of A. arcuata), Ames gave measurements of 11'0-12'6 x 7-7'5 pm for the ascospores, which he described as ovoid. Ascospore dimensions of the ERDL Ascotricha now are 7'5-8'5 x 6'5-7'5 pm (c. 4'0 pm wide in lateral view), and the spores are discoid. Ames's measurements of the conidia are 7'5-8'0 x 5"4-5'7 pm, and ours are 5'0-7'0 x 3'0-4'0 usn. Despite these discrepancies, Ames's description of A , congoensis obviously is based on the ERDL material that constitutes the type of A. arcuata. However unsatisfactorily, Ames designated either a holotype or possibly several type elements for A. arcuata, and Art. 7 of th e Code stipulates that the name of a taxon is permanently associated with its nomenclatural type. Thus, the nomenclatural type of A. arcuata is inextricably bound to the name even though it is associated in Ames's publication with a description of a different fungus. This is a very confusing circumstance, which could lead to the rejection of the name A. arcuata under the provisions of the Code, Art. 69: ' A name must be rejected if it is used in different senses and so has become a long-persistent source of error.' Ames, of course, has already used the name in different senses, for he applied it to an original description that characterizes a fungus not in the same taxon as the nomenclatural type of A. arcuata. Rejection of a name must be weighed against the clear intent of nomenclature, which is the preservation of names whenever feasible. According to Gleason (1947), ' T hose who frequently turn to the pages of the Code ... are fully aware that there are ... nom enclatural problems connected with typification . . .which are not fully met. In all such cases, the rules should be interpreted to favor the maintenance of a name rather than its change.' In the same vein, Rogers (1949) quoted G. R. Bisby as having written (in litt.): 'A taxonomist should make every effort he conscientiously can to keep in use a name .. . that has many users, actual or potential.' The
320
Transactions British Mycological Society
Preamble to the Code advocates' the avoidance of the useless creation of names', but it also includes a statement about 'avoiding and rejecting the use of names which may cause error or ambiguity'. Rejection of A. arcuata on the basis of Article 6g would preclude its use for any species. To summarize therefore-( I) A. arcuata was named by Ames on the basis of fungus material obtained from Fort Belvoir; (2) whether the data given for the type locality represent a single original isolation of A. arcuata or more than one is not known, but all of the material now known to exist represents a single species; (3) in order to eliminate any vestige of question about the implications of Ames's typification, the element from ERDL tap water (AA 6) is designated as the lectotype of A. arcuata; (4) material from decaying vegetation (not noted as such among Ames's collections) and from Accotink tap water (AA 6a), if they represent isolations separate from that of AA 6, are regarded as syntypes; (5) the description that accompanies the name and type designation for A. arcuata is not based on either the nomenclatural type or on any other specimens of A. arcuata, but it actually is a description of the taxon represented by the nomenclatural type of A. congoensis; (6) therefore, the name and designated nomenclatural type of A. arcuata, as published originally by Ames, are not accompanied by a description of the taxon represented by that name and type. Designation of a type, although an essential part of the type description, cannot be considered a type description in itself. This principle is of long standing, as evidenced by Sudworth's (1897) quotation from the laws adopted at the Paris Congress of 1867: 'A species announced in a work under generic and specific names, but without any information as to its characters, can not be considered as being published.' In a discussion concerned with the same Congress, Ward (1895) wrote that: 'The fundamental principle of these laws was priority of publication with adequate descriptions.... ' The present Code carries essentially the same language, and the intent ofArt. 32 is unmistakable: 'In order to be validly published, a name of a taxon must ... (3) be accompanied by a description or a diagnosis of the taxon.... ' Quite clearly, this article does not say that the description may be of a taxon; instead, it says that the description must apply to the taxon under consideration. Since the description that accompanies the name and typification of A. arcuata is a description of a different taxon, the name A. arcuata is published without being accompanied by a description that characterizes its nomenclatural type. This form of publication might be considered as invalid because it does not fulfill the requirements of Art. 32. Although the description under A. arcuata does not apply precisely to that species, perhaps many ofits words and phrases could be utilized; probably a few different adjectives and measurements could be inserted; and we should then have an emended description that would adequately characterize the taxon. One may even reason that the emendation could consist ofthe wholesale substitution of the description under the name A. congoensis for the one presently under A. arcuata. This is the key point that reveals the fallaciousness of any such substitution. Ames attempted to describe A. arcuata, but he actually described A. congoensis. If, somewhere among the descriptions of various species of Ascotricha, one description corresponds to
Ascotricha. P. L. Lentz and D. L. Hawksworth
321
the type of A. areuata, that description nevertheless was published under another name. According to the Code, the publication of each new taxon must adhere to the regulations for valid publication entirely on its own merits. Thus, an appropriate, or misplaced, or emendable description published in association with the typification of some other taxon cannot affect the publication validity of any name other than the one under which it is published. A description of a taxon may be emended, but descriptions of different taxa cannot be arbitrarily substituted for one another. Art. 51 states that, 'An alteration of the diagnostic characters ... of a taxon does not warrant a change in its name.... ' However, additional stipulations and examples show that this Article refers to emendations of descriptions resulting from taxonomic modifications. Neither here nor anywhere else in the Code is any provision made for arbitrary substitutions ofdescriptions published under names of different taxa. The involutions ofthe preceding discussion simply mirror the distortions in Ames's presentation of A. arcuata. Any attempt here to remedy obvious deficiencies in the original publication of the species seems futile. Ames's A. areuata may be regarded as a rejected name under the provisions of Article 69, and may also be considered as not validly published because it does not entirely conform to the requirements of Art. 32. This nomenclatural note was not initiated with any intention of putting related taxonomic problems in order, and the identity ofthe ERDL Ascotricha and others from Fort Belvoir are discussed further by Hawksworth (1971).
ASCOTRICHA CONGOENSIS Ames, A Monograph of the Chaetomiaceae P·48, 1963 According to Ames, A. congoensis was isolated from 'samples of animal dung and litter' collected in the Belgian Congo by J. Meyer (Instit. Carnoy, Louvain, Belgium) in 1958. Material of Ascotricha obtained from the Belgian Congo and now at Beltsville consists of five herbarium specimens (AA 19), four slides numbered AA 5, and two numbered AA 4. None of the specimens or slides is labelled as A. congoensis. Probably they represent at least two or three separate collections, but all seem to show characters of the same species. The heterogeneity of collection records in this instance is similar to that of A. arcuata, but more definitely ascertained. Slides and drawings filed as AA 4 bear also the original Meyer collection number 199 and represent a collection made on 30 September 1955. One of the slides, included as AA 5, is dated 24 February 1956. No material bears the date 1958, but Meyer, (in litt.) informs us that the type collection of A. congoensis was sent to Ames probably early in 1958. Since material of AA 4 and AA 5 must have been collected before 1958, AA 19 is left as the probable type of A. congoensis. The fact that material of AA 19 consists of herbarium specimens supports this conjecture, as most of Ames's herbarium preparations are types. None of the material from the Belgian Congo closely resembles Ames's published description and drawings labelled as A. congoensis. Instead, it represents the other halfof the confusion between A. arcuata and A. congoensis. Just as the typification of A. arcuata was accompanied by a description
322
Transactions British Mycological Society
of A. congoensis, the typification of A. congoensis was published together with a description of A. arcuata. This becomes clear when published drawings and the description are compared with herbarium specimens and other original material. The pencil drawings that Ames labelled' Congo Belgae' are found in his monograph (Plate 29, figures 1-9) under the name A. arcuata (cr. our PIs. 15, 16), Measurements of ascospores and conidia that Ames included for A. arcuata (thus actually derived from material of A. congoensis) are 13'0-16'3 x 7'3-12.8 pm and 8'5-10'1 x 6'5-7'0 usn, respectively. In the material from the Belgian Congo, ascospores now have dimensions of 7'5-10'0 x 6'5-8'0 pm (c, 4'0-5'0 pm wide in lateral view) and conidia are 4'5-7'5 x 2'5-4'5 ust: The discrepancies in these measurements seem beyond explanation, but the material from the Congo agrees in other attributes with the description that Ames misplaced under A, arcuata. Ames's typification data and accessary records leave some pertinent questions unanswered. Accordingly, we believe that designation of a lectotype is desirable and that herbarium specimens AA 19 are suitable as the lectotype of A. congoensis. As was reluctantly done with A. arcuata, A. congoensis may be regarded as a rejected name under the provisions of Art. 69 and may also be considered as not validly published as defined in Art. 32. The nomenclature and taxonomy of the Ascotricha from the Belgian Congo are discussed further by Hawksworth (197 I).
ASCOTRICHA GUAMENSIS Ames, Mycologia 43, p. 30, 1951 In both his original publication (1951) and monograph (1963), Ames stated that the original culture of A. guamensis was White and Yeager's isolate known as Guam number 3 and originally obtained from cardboard boxes in Guam, Preparations with these data have been given the number AA 2 at Beltsville. Ames sent a subculture of Guam number 3 to the American Type Culture Collection where it is maintained as ATCC I 1219. Herbarium specimens prepared from subcultures of ATCC I 12 I 9 are deposited in the National Fungus Collections. These herbarium specimens are designated as the lectotype of A. guamensis. Designation of a lectotype is especially important because Ames may have based his original description and illustrations on more than a single isolate. Three slides that Ames prepared are regarded as isotypes, although two also include abundant fragments of a Chaetomium. Ames's description of A. guamensis is consistent with our observations of the type material. Although Ames stated that this species is known only from the type collection, a herbarium specimen and four slide preparations, now in BPI as AA 7, were labelled by Ames as Biak number 1. Drawings of the Biak fungus appear with Ames's original description as figures 9-1 I and 13-15 and these were reproduced under the same numbers in plate 28 of his monograph. Only figure 12 (and perhaps figure 8) are based on pencil drawings that Ames labelled as Guam number 3 (AA 2). Biak Island is about 1000 miles south of Guam. Nevertheless, information not originally available may subsequently have shown Ames that Guam number 3 and Biak number I represent a single collection. Therefore, Ames's statement
Ascotricha. P. L. Lentz and D. L. Hawksworth
323
concerning typification is accepted to the extent that Guam number 3 (AA 2) is regarded as the lectotype. Still, the Biak material is kept under a separate number in order to maintain the integrity of Ames's unpublished records. This seems all the more pertinent because correspondence between Ames and W. L. White of the Philadelphia Quartermaster Depot reveals that fungus cultures wer e received by White, and presumably forwarded to Ames, from both Gu am and Biak.
ASCOTRICHA XYLINA Ames, Mycologia 43, p . 29,1951 In the National Fungus Collections, A. xylina is represented by eight slide preparations consisting of material having characteristics that correspond to those in Ames's description and illustrations. Portions of Ames's pencil drawings were reproduced as figures 1-7 in the original publication (1951) and in plate 28 of the monograph. Ames designated the type as Manila number 5 of White and Yeager, and all such material in BPI has been coded by number AA 3. Correspondence indicates that Ames sent a specimen to W. W. Ray at the University of Nebraska in 1951, but this specimen cannot be found. The slide preparations in BPI, to our knowledge, evidently constitute the entire portion of the type now in existence. Collectively, these slides are the holotype. Ames described the spores of A. xylina as ovate and compressed. Many are cymbiform, with one side concave and the other markedly convex, but this shape probably results from partial collapse of the spores in the mounting medium that Ames used. Nevertheless, the cymbiform appearance is so constant as to be characteristic of the species. A generic feature of Ascotricha is the girdle that surrounds the narrow rim between opposite faces of the spores (Hawksworth, 197I ). In A. xylina this characteristic is relatively obscure, but an inconspicuous girdle may be seen on at least some of the spores. We are very grateful to Mr F. C. Deighton and Dr B. C. Sutton for advice and discussions on the nomenclatural problems discussed in this paper. REFERENCES
AMES, L. M . (1951). New species of cellulose decomposing fungi. III. Mycologia43, 29-33. AMES, L. M. (1963). A monograph of the Chaetomiaceac. U.S. Army Research andDevelopment Series, no. 2, i-ix, 1-125. GLEASON, H . A. (1947). The preservation of well-known binomials. Phytologiaa, 201-212. HAWKSWORTH, D. L. (1971). A revision of the genus Ascotricha Berk. Mycological Papers 126 (in press). HITCHCOCK, A. S. (1905). Nomenclatural typ e specimens of plant species. Science, N.r. 21, 828-832. LANJOUW, J. et al. (ed.) (1966). International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. Regnum Vegetabile 46, 1-402. ROGERS, D. P. (1949). Nomina conser vanda proposita and nomina confusa -fungi. Farlowia 3, 425-493. SUDWORTH, G. B. (1897). Nomenclature of the arborescent flora of the U .S. USDA Division Forestry Bulletin. no. 14, Appendix, 341-356. WARD, L. F. (1895)' The nomenclature question. Torrey Botanical Club Bulletin 22,3083 29.
Transactions British Mycological Society EXPLANATION OF PLATES
15
AND
16
PLATE 15
Ink drawings for Ames's Monograph plate 29. Figures l-g were labelled in the monograph as A. arcuata [Fort Belvoir]; figures 20-29 were labelled as A. congoensis [Congo Belgae]. PLATE 16
Pencil drawings used by Ames in preparing the ink drawings for plate 29. Figures l-g were labelled as Congo Belgae [A. congoensis]; figures 20-29 were labelled as Tap [Accotink or ERDL= Fort Belvoir; A. arcuata]. Figures I and 28 are not shown here. Magnifications not standardized.
(AcceptedfoT publication 6 May 1971)
Trans. Br. mycol. Soc.
Vol. 57.
Plate IS
(Facing p. 324)
Trans. Br. mycol. Soc.
Vol. 57. Plate 16
.u
27
1/1-
'!}? /-1 "1'/
~~~
C'
~
t
--r .
't--=:
elf
-\
(
!
...
22 '3'L r
23
l'
'" ('
- j'
25
I)
20 8
\-
, I
,I
)
c.,r,
")~") /
--
3
7
/:
24
4
., 5
21
9
6
2
)
)