aba: fungi imperfecti

Eric Grunden egrunden at prairienet.org
Tue Feb 6 16:10:57 EST 1996

In a previous article, ZUBP40A at prodigy.com (David Pinero) says:

>I partly agree with this statement. With your same arguments, I learned 
>it is correct to use the "sexual name" instead of the imperfect one. For 
>example, we refer to Aspergillus Chevalieri as Eurotium Chevalieri; 
>Monilia (Chrysonilia) sp. as Neurospora sp., and so forth. But many of 
>the fungi imperfecti do not have a known Telomorph. Take Aspergillus 
>Niger, or Penicillum Chrysogenum for example; two well known species with 
>no known sexual stage. If all fungi imperfecti had easily recognised 
>sexual stages, why deal with this confusing classification? Since this is 
>not the case, we just have to live with it. 


Why not just give it ONE name, and describe all of its known
states? Two names is misleading and confusing. If a fungus
has no known sexual state, just give it a name and say ;
"no known sexual state" or "sexual state unobserved as yet"
or something like that. If both states have been observed
call it X and describe its perfect and imperfect states.
To lump fungi as different as asco's and basidio's together
under one classification, just because we haven't seen their
sexual states, is silly. Come on, let's all take a stand and
refuse to recognize the deuteromycetes. There are no such things...
The Spirit of Nature, a powerful force,
	belongs and returns to its creative source.
- Excerpted from The Collective Works of Johnny Pokerface -

More information about the Mycology mailing list