Subject: aba: fungi imperfecti

From: [email-masked] (David Pinero)
Date: 6 Feb 1996 04:05:14 GMT

SUBJECT: Re: Ban the fungi imperfecti....... 
David Geiser <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>In article <[email-masked]> Eric Grunden,
>[email-masked] writes:
>
>>Does anyone else feel that the existence of the so-called
>>Deuteromycetes is unscientific and many times redundant?
>
>>After all, these fungi all have (or have had) sexual states
>>and so should be placed where they properly belong to best
>>demonstrate their phylogenetic relationship to other fungi.
>

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.