(2762) Cytospora resinae Ehrenb., Sylv. Mycol. Berol.: 28. 5 Nov 1818, nom. cons. prop.

Typus: Sweden in Fries, Scleromyceti Suec. [exs.] No. 37 (UPS No. F‐541757; isotypus: FH barcode 00964792), typ. cons. prop.

The need for this proposal arises from the existence of three nomenclaturally independent species names, all with the epithet “resinae”, and all now regarded as applicable to the same species. Two, Lecidea resinae Fr. and Sphaeria resinae Fr., published simultaneously (Fries, Observ. Mycol. 1: 180. 1815), were thought by Fries to be different species occurring in the same habitat and not to be confused. Subsequent authors have demonstrated that these two names are based upon morphs of the same species (Ayers in Mycologia 33: 130–135. 1941; Hawksworth & Sherwood in Canad. J. Bot. 59: 357–372. 1981). The third, Cytospora resinae Ehrenb. (Sylv. Mycol. Berol.: 28. 1818), has long been considered a synonym of Sphaeria resinae, but, although Ehrenberg was aware of Fries's Observationes mycologicae, for example suggesting (l.c.) that perhaps all of Sphaeronaema Fr., published therein, might be included in his new genus Cytospora, the evidence is that he did not intend to base C. resinae on an already existing name, listing it as “resinae mihi” (l.c.: 15) and including it in his “Specierum novarum index” (l.c.: 31–32). Consequently, the provisions of Art. 41.4 of the ICN (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) to treat a name as a new combination cannot be applied as that was evidently not Ehrenberg's “presumed intent”.

Sarea Fr. (Syst. Orb. Veg.: 86. 1825) is a genus of widespread, nonpathogenic, resinicolous discomycetes (Hawksworth & Sherwood, l.c.). Cytospora resinae Ehrenb. has long been considered an anamorphic synonym of its most commonly reported species, Sarea resinae (Fr.) Kuntze (Revis. Gen. Pl. 3: 515. 1898), based ultimately on Lecidea resinae Fr. (l.c. 1815) (Fries, Syst. Mycol. 2(2): 453. 1823; Körber, Parerga Lichenol.: 453. 1865; Hawksworth & Sherwood, l.c.) that has, as noted, to be treated as an independent use of the epithet “resinae” from that of Ehrenberg. Recent work (Mitchell & al., ined.) has found that the species to which these names apply falls outside the genus Sarea as typified by Hawksworth & Sherwood (l.c.) by Peziza difformis Fr. (Syst. Mycol. 2(1): 151. 1822) and that the generic name Zythia Fr. (l.c. 1825: 118) should be revived to accommodate it.

Although von Höhnel (in Sitzungsber. Kaiserl. Akad. Wiss., Wien, Math.‐Naturwiss. Cl., Abt. 1, 124: 90. 1915) first proposed as type of Zythia, Z. elegans (De Not.) Fr. (Summa Veg. Scand.: 408. 1849), based on Sphaeronaema elegans De Not. (in Mem. Reale Accad. Sci. Torino, ser. 2, 7: 11. 1845), this is not a species name referred to by Fries in the protologue (indeed not validly published until 20 years later), nor is Zythia a sanctioned name, and so Z. elegans is not eligible as type. The next published typification is that by Clements & Shear (Gen. Fung., ed. 2: 372. 1931), who cited the type as “Z. resinae (Ehrb.) Fr.”, which, as Fries never published that combination, whether based on Cytospora resinae, Lecidea resinae, or Sphaeria resinae, must be interpreted as referring to Z. resinae (Ehrenb.) P. Karst. (in Meddeland. Soc. Fauna Fl. Fenn. 14: 104. 1887). As Fries, in the protologue of Zythia (l.c. 1825), only cited “Sphæronæmata priora in S. M., forsan & Sphæria Resinæ &c” (i.e., the first species of Sphaeronaema from his Systema mycologicum account [Fries, l.c. 1823] and Sphaeria resinae), it is open to question whether he “definitely included” (Art. 10.2) the type of C. resinae Ehrenb. in Zythia, although he had treated the name as a synonym of Sphaeria resinae in his Systema mycologicum (Fries, l.c. 1823). The proposed conservation will resolve this question and confirm the choice by Clements & Shear.

The generic name Zythia was until recently generally applied to a group of some 60 species of unrelated pycnidial fungi (Redlin & Rossman in Mycologia 83: 200–209. 1991; Koukol & al. in Czech Mycol. 70: 91–98. 2018). Zythia is listed as incertae sedis in Ascomycota in one recent classification (Wijayawardene & al. in Fungal Diversity 88: 167–263. 2018) and was not included by Jaklitsch & al. (in Engler, Syllabus, ed. 13, 1(2). 2016) in their classification of Ascomycota. The genus was also excluded from the most prominent treatment of the coelomycetes (Sutton, Coelomycetes. 1980). Thus, it may be considered to have been abandoned until its present resurrection as the earliest generic name available for Sphaeria resinae (Mitchell & al., l.c.). The family name, Zythiaceae Clem. (Gen. Fung.: 128. 1909) is based on this generic name. It too is not in current use but should be taken up as an earlier synonym of Sareaceae Beimforde & al. (in Fungal Syst. Evol. 6: 25. 2020).

Karsten (l.c.) made the combination Zythia resinae (Ehrenb.) P. Karst. explicitly based on Cytospora resinae, but he listed Sphaeria resinae as a synonym, citing it from the sanctioning work (Fries, l.c. 1823), rather than the earlier protologue (Fries, l.c. 1815), published three years before Ehrenberg's name. Similar confusion exists in the work of other authors (von Thümen in Oesterr. Bot. Z. 30: 313. 1880; von Höhnel, l.c.; Clements & Shear, l.c.). This may be attributable to confusion, or even ignorance, regarding the true protologue of Sphaeria resinae, with authors appearing to consider Fries's (l.c. 1823) now sanctioned binomial as a combination based on Ehrenberg's (l.c.) name. The later starting date for the nomenclature of fungi was not apparently a factor as that rule only existed between the Brussels Rules (Briquet, Règles Int. Nomencl. Bot., ed. 2. 1912) and the Leningrad Code (Stafleu & al. in Regnum Veg. 97. 1978). Recent authors have disagreed as to whether Ehrenberg's name was a combination based on Sphaeria resinae Fr. (l.c. 1815) (Hawksworth & Sherwood, l.c.) or a new species (Braun in Schlechtendalia 30: 19. 2016). As noted above, it is not possible to consider it a new combination, even under Art. 41.4.

The issue has become important because recent work (Mitchell & al., l.c.) has indicated that the current concept of Sarea resinae encompasses a large number of possible cryptic species with little detectable morphological variation, several of which occur in Scandinavia and several in central Europe, some with overlapping distributions. Cytospora resinae was described from Hasenheide and Grunewald in Berlin (Ehrenberg, l.c.), whereas the type of Sphaeria resinae is from Sweden. It is thus possible that at some point in the future, Cytospora resinae, for which no type has been designated, but for which Braun (l.c.) reports original material at Berlin and Halle (B 700016297, HAL 3029 F), may no longer be treated as conspecific with Sphaeria resinae. This will inevitably lead to confusion, since treating both species in the same genus (they are undoubtedly congeneric) will require a nomen novum for one or the other. In the case of treatment in the genus Zythia, this will result in the unfortunate necessity of replacing the older Friesian name. It will likely also complicate further the confusion existing already in the literature.

To avoid these eventualities, we propose here to conserve the name Cytospora resinae with the lectotype of Sphaeria resinae selected by Hawksworth & Sherwood (l.c.) as conserved type. While material from Fries's Scleromyceti Sueciae exists in several herbaria, determining which specimens may be considered isolectotypes is complicated by the fact that Fries issued two editions of his exsiccata (Holm & Nannfeldt in Friesia 7: 17. 1963) and the lectotype selected by Hawksworth and Sherwood (l.c.) is from the first edition. The only other first edition containing a specimen of Sphaeria resinae known to the authors is housed in FH (Pfister in Mycotaxon 3: 186. 1975), still bound in the original booklets, and we cite this specimen here as an isolectotype of Sphaeria resinae and an isotype of the proposed conserved type of Cytospora resinae. This change in type will have the effect of rendering the two names homotypic, preventing future confusion. It will also correct most of the existing nomenclatural irregularities without the need for any new combinations or replacement names.

（2762）Cytospora resinae Ehrenb。，Sylv。Mycol。Berol.：1818年5月28日，标价。缺点 支柱。

Typus：瑞典炸薯条，Scleromyceti Suec。[例如] No. 37（UPS编号F-541757；同型症：FH条码00964792），典型。缺点 支柱。

该提议的需要源于存在三个命名上独立的物种名称，所有名称都用“树脂”来命名，并且现在都认为它们适用于同一物种。二，树脂假丝酵母。弗里斯（Fries，Observ。Mycol。1：180. 1815）同时出版的《白头翁》（Sphaeria resinae Fr.）和弗里斯（Sphaeria resinae）系列，被认为是同一栖息地中的不同物种，不要混淆。随后的作者证明了这两个名称是基于同一物种的形态（Ayers in Mycologia 33：130–135。1941； Hawksworth＆Sherwood in Canad。J. Bot。59：357–372。1981）。第三类，是Cytospora resinae Ehrenb。（Sylv。Mycol。Berol .: 28. 1818），长期以来一直被认为是Sphaeria resinae的同义词。，但是，尽管埃伦贝格（Ehrenberg）知道弗里斯（Fries）的Mycologicae（真菌学观察），例如暗示（lc）也许其中出版的所有Sphaeronaema Fr.都可能包含在他的新属Cytospora中，但证据表明他并不打算以C为基础。 resinae，名称为“ resinae mihi”（lc：15），并包含在他的“ Specierum novarum index”中（lc：31–32）。因此，艺术的规定。ICN的41.4 （Turland等人在Regnum Veg。159. 2018中）将名称视为新组合不能适用，因为显然这不是Ehrenberg的“推定意图”。

沙里亚神父 （Syst。Orb。Veg.：86。1825）是一种广泛的，非致病性的，树脂质的盘状线虫属（Hawksworth＆Sherwood，lc）。茶树树脂亚目。长期以来一直被认为是其最常报道的物种Sarea resinae（Fr.）Kuntze（Revis。Gen . Pl。3：515。1898）的变形同义词，最终基于Lecidea resinae Fr .。（lc 1815）（Fries，Syst。Mycol。2（2）：453. 1823;Körber，Parerga Lichenol .: 453. 1865; Hawksworth＆Sherwood，lc）如上所述，已被视为独立使用Ehrenberg的绰号“ resinae ”。最近的工作（Mitchell等人，编辑）发现，这些名称所适用的物种不属于Sarea属。以Hawkesworth＆Sherwood（lc）为代表的Peziza difformis Fr. （Syst。Mycol。2（1）：151. 1822），并且通用名称为ZythiaFr。（lc 1825：118）应该恢复以适应它。

虽然冯Höhnel（在Sitzungsber Kaiserl AKAD WISS，维也纳，Math.-Naturwiss氯，ABT 1，124：。。。。。90 1915）首先提出类型的Zythia，Z.线虫星期五（德不行）。 。（Summa Veg。Scand .: 408. 1849），基于秀丽隐杆线虫（Sphaeronaema elegans De Not。）。（在MEM王宫亚甲科学都灵，SER 2，7：。11. 1845），这不是一个物种名称按弗里斯在原始描述（实际上不合格发表直到20年后）的简称，也不是Zythia一个批准的名称，因此线虫Z. elegans没有资格作为类型。下一个已发表的代表词是Clements＆Shear的著作（Gen. Fung。，第2版：372。1931年），他将该类型称为“ Z. resinae（Ehrb。）Fr.”，因为Fries从未公开过该组合，无论是基于Cytospora resinae，Lecidea resinae还是Sphaeria resinae，都必须解释为指Z. resinae（Ehrenb。）P. Karst。（在Meddeland.Soc.Fauna Fl.Fenn.14：104.1887中）。如弗里斯（Fries）在Zythia（lc 1825）的前言中，仅引用了“SphæronæmataPriora in SM，forsan和SphæriaResinæ＆c”（即，从他的Systema mycologicum帐户中首次发现的Sphaeronaema物种[Fries，lc 1823]和Sphaeria resinae）。 ，人们是否质疑他是否“绝对包括”（第10.2条）艾氏梭菌。在Zythia，尽管他在Mycologicum（Fries，lc 1823）中将该名称作为Sphaeria resinae的同义词。提议的保护措施将解决这个问题，并确认Clements＆Shear的选择。

直到最近才将通用名Zythia应用于一组约60种无关的钩虫真菌（Redlin＆Rossman in Mycologia 83：200–209。1991; Koukol等人在Czech Mycol。70：91–98。2018）。 。Zythia在最近的分类中被列为子囊菌中的不动产（Wijayawardene等人，Fungal Diversity 88：167–263。2018），但Jaklitsch等人未将其包括在内。（在Engler，Syllabus，ed。13，1（2）。2016）中对子囊菌的分类。该属也被排除在腔肠菌的最突出治疗之外（Sutton，Coelomycetes.1980）。因此，它可能被认为是废弃的，直到其目前的复活为止，作为最早的通用名称可用于树脂白粉菌。（Mitchell等，lc）。家族名称，Zythiaceae Clem。（Gen. Fung .: 128. 1909）基于此通用名称。它目前也没有使用，但应作为Sareaceae Beimforde等人的早期同义词使用。（Fungal Syst.Evol.6：25.2020）。

Karsten（lc）组合了Zythia resinae（Ehrenb。）P. Karst。明显地基于Cytospora resinae，但是他将Sphaeria resinae作为同义词，引用了制裁工作（Fries，lc 1823），而不是早于Ehrenberg的名字发表三年的原型（Fries，lc 1815）。其他作者的工作也存在类似的困惑（vonThümen在Oesterr。Bot。Z. 30：313。1880； vonHöhnel，lc； Clements＆Shear，lc）。这可能是由于对白球菌属的真实原本感到困惑甚至无知。，作者似乎认为Fries（lc 1823）现在认可二项式为基于Ehrenberg（lc）名称的组合。真菌命名法的较晚开始日期显然不是一个因素，因为该规则仅存在于布鲁塞尔规则（Briquet，RèglesInt。Nomencl。Bot。，第2版，1912年）和列宁格勒法典（Stafleu等人于Regnum Veg.97。（1978）。最近的作者不同意埃伦贝格的名字是否是基于Sphaeria resinae Fr的组合。（lc 1815）（Hawksworth＆Sherwood，lc）或新物种（Braun in Schlechtendalia 30：19. 2016）。如上所述，即使是根据Art，也无法将其视为新的组合。41.4。

这个问题变得很重要，因为最近的工作（Mitchell等人，文献）已经表明，目前的Sarea resinae概念涵盖了大量可能的隐性物种，几乎没有可检测到的形态变异，其中一些发生在斯堪的纳维亚半岛，另外一些发生在中欧，有些分布重叠。从柏林的Hasenheide和Grunewald（Ehrenberg，lc）描述了Cytospora resinae，而Sphaeria resinae的类型则来自瑞典。因此有可能在将来的某个时候，不再指定其Cytospora resinae，但其Braun（lc）报告了柏林和哈雷的原始材料（B 700016297，HAL 3029 F），可能不再适用。被视为与球形树脂。这将不可避免地导致混乱，因为对待同一个属（无疑是同属的）这两个物种将需要一个或另一个的命名。如果使用Zythia属进行治疗，很不幸，这将有必要替换旧的Friesian名称。这也可能会使文献中已经存在的混乱进一步复杂化。

为避免这些意外情况，我们在此建议保留名称为Cytospora resinae的树脂，其选种为Hawksworth＆Sherwood（lc）选择的Sphaeria resinae的保守型。尽管弗里斯的葡萄菌巩膜菌的材料存在于几种草科植物中，但由于弗里斯发行了他的exsiccata的两个版本（Holm＆Nannfeldt in Friesia 7：17。1963）以及Hawksworth和Sherwood（lc）来自第一版。唯一的其他第一版中包含树脂球菌标本作者所知道的是安置在FH（Pfister in Mycotaxon 3：186. 1975）中，仍装在原始小册子中，我们在此引用此标本为Sphaeria resinae的同种型和提议的保守Cytospora resinae的同种型。这种类型的更改将使两个名称具有同型性，从而避免了将来的混淆。它还将纠正大多数现有的命名规则不规则性，而无需任何新的组合或替换名称。