Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42502310›Full record

ArticleIMA fungus2026

Dirt or type? Clarifying fungal nomenclature in the DNA age.

Vasco Fachada, Irina S Druzhinina

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in IMA fungus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Vasco FachadaRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Kew Green, Richmond, Surrey, UK Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew Richmond United Kingdom https://ror.org/00ynnr806.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6575-1943
Irina S DruzhininaRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Kew Green, Richmond, Surrey, UK Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew Richmond United Kingdom https://ror.org/00ynnr806.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2821-5268

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid expansion of high-throughput sequencing and environmental DNA (eDNA) studies has led to the introduction of dozens of fungal names based exclusively on molecular data derived from environmental substrates such as soil, dung, or water. In several recent cases, authors and nomenclatural repositories have divergently treated such names as valid or invalid on the grounds that the designated types may or may not constitute specimens under the current wording of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN; Madrid Code). Here, we examine the nomenclatural basis of these treatments by analysing the relevant ICN provisions on specimens, gatherings, admixtures, and typification. We show that while a conservative curatorial approach is defensible under current practice and aligned with the ICN's objective of nomenclatural stability, the Code does not explicitly address whether preserved environmental samples can serve as types when a taxon is evidenced solely by a molecular signal. We therefore argue that explicit clarification-through formal proposals to amend Chapter F and/or relevant general ICN provisions-is now urgently required to ensure consistent, transparent, and future-ready nomenclatural practice in the face of accelerating detection-driven discovery. Graphical Abstract.

Indexed as

Admixtures and gatheringsfungal dark taxaICNIndex FungorumMycoBankspecimenhoodtaxonomytypification

Identifiers

PMID42502310
PMCPMC13401187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.