In a letter to the editor to the journal Nature, regarding the recently discovered/induced sexual stage in Aspergillus fumigatus, David Hawksworth argues that using the separate names for sexual (teleomorph) and asexual (anamorph) stages is confusing and unnecessary in this context. The name Neosartorya fumigata is given to the sexual stage which was produced from two individuals which were both A. fumigatus. The letter writer makes the point that referring to a new name for the sexual stage when we already know what its anamorph is seems superfluous and overly confusing. He gives the analogy of Aspergillus nidulans where its teleomorph Emericella nidulans is “largely ignored”.
The double names for something which is the same species (i.e. has the same genomic sequence) is certainly a confusing aspect of mycology. It stems from the morphological description of species and that before DNA or molecular approaches to identification it was difficult to connect the anamorph and teleomorph stages unless you could induce the entire lifecycle in the laboratory. I think that the same name for homologous structures from different phyla is also equally confusing, but necessary aspect of how things are currently named and classified.
What researchers should described the sample/individual they are using for experiments in their manuscripts is important to avoid confusion and for readers so I think Prof Hawksworth makes an important point especially when discussing something where the anamorphs and teleomorphs are unified. Certainly an agreed upon protocol here would be quite helpful of what to preferably use when the stages have been connected.
Hawksworth, D. (2009). Separate name for fungus’s sexual stage may cause confusion Nature, 458 (7234), 29-29 DOI: 10.1038/458029c