Fusarium solani?

[camille1585]

There is information out there if you know what to look for. (Ascomycete) fungal taxonomy is a mess because they have different morphs, which are the sexual (telemorph) and asexual (anamorph) states of the fungus. This has led to fungi having dual nomenclature based on their morphs. Fusarium solani is one very good example, where the name corresponds to the asexual morph which leads to root and leaf sheath rot. The sexual morph of the exact same fungus is called Nectria haematococca, and forms reproductive structures in the form of red/orange balls called perithecia.

If you then google the name of the sexual form, you will probably find a lot more information. That being said, it doesn't mean that the red balls the OP sees actually are Fusarium since many other fungi make such sexual structures. I also don't know how frequently the sexual morph will develop on orchids, it could be that we never hear of it because orchids are primarily affected by the asexual one.


If you are scientifically minded, there is a nice review about the issues surrounding dual nomenclature of fungi, the reasoning behind it, and arguements for adopting a 'one fungus, one name' approach. http://www.wi.knaw.nl/images/Researc...11.00768.x.pdf

[estación seca]

Originally Posted by camille1585

There is information out there if you know what to look for. (Ascomycete) fungal taxonomy is a mess because they have different morphs, which are the sexual (telemorph) and asexual (anamorph) states of the fungus. This has led to fungi having dual nomenclature based on their morphs. Fusarium solani is one very good example, where the name corresponds to the asexual morph which leads to root and leaf sheath rot. The sexual morph of the exact same fungus is called Nectria haematococca, and forms reproductive structures in the form of red/orange balls called perithecia.

If you then google the name of the sexual form, you will probably find a lot more information. That being said, it doesn't mean that the red balls the OP sees actually are Fusarium since many other fungi make such sexual structures. I also don't know how frequently the sexual morph will develop on orchids, it could be that we never hear of it because orchids are primarily affected by the asexual one.


If you are scientifically minded, there is a nice review about the issues surrounding dual nomenclature of fungi, the reasoning behind it, and arguements for adopting a 'one fungus, one name' approach. http://www.wi.knaw.nl/images/Researc...11.00768.x.pdf

Nine years on from that paper.... Are we to use just one name? Does Fusarium or Nectria have priority for this species?

[camille1585]

Originally Posted by estación seca

Nine years on from that paper.... Are we to use just one name? Does Fusarium or Nectria have priority for this species?

I have no idea, but seeing how slowly science accepts changes, it wouldn't be surprising if the dual system is still used. I did find a presentation on fungaltaxonomy.org from 2013 about ending dual nomeclature in the International Code of Nomenclature, but I don't have enough time to male sense of it right now.

https://www.fungaltaxonomy.org/files...013_update.pdf

From what I further understand from the website and articles within is that the scientific community then has to determine for each fungus group with dual names, what the generic name is going to be.

"With the change to one scientific name for all Fungi in accordance with the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN, McNeill et al. 2012), it has been necessary to determine which generic name should be applied when two or more generic names are typified by different morphs of the same genus. Recommendations about which generic name to use have been made primarily by specialized Subcommissions or Working Groups of the International Commission for the Taxonomy of Fungi (ICTF), each representing a different group of Fungi."