(2867–2871) Proposals to Conserve the Names Tuber Aestivum Vittad. Against T. Aestivum (wulfen) Spreng. and T. Blotii , T. Magnatum Against T. Griseum , and T. Melanosporum Against T. Nigrum , and to Reject the Names T. Albidum and T. Cibarium ( Ascomycota : Pezizomycetes )

Many countries regulate the names of commercially important truffles, such as France (Accord Interprofessionnel Truffes Fraîches. 1996, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000000563056, https://www.interfel.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/accord-interprofessionnel-truffe.pdf), Italy (Legge 16 December 1985 n.752, https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:1985;752), Spain (Decreto 1688/1972, https://boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-1972-986; Real Decreto 30/2009, https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2009-1110), and New Zealand (Fresh Truffles for Human Consumption, HIS.FP.TRUFFLE 2 October 2018, https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/16813-Fresh-Truffles-for-Consumption-Import-Health-Standard). These regulations all concern the names of the most important species of truffles that have long been referred to by the following scientific and common names: Tuber aestivum Vittad. as summer truffle or truffe noire de Bourgogne, Tuber magnatum Picco as Italian white truffle or alba white truffle, and Tuber melanosporum Vittad. as black truffle or Truffe du Périgord. In reviewing the scientific names of these fungi, we have discovered several competing names. To maintain stability in communication about these commercially important fungi, we propose to conserve the commonly used scientific names against competing earlier or sanctioned names. The starting point for recognizing priority of publication of names has changed over the decades and is now determined by the latest International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN; Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). Although the starting date for names of all fungi is now 1 May 1753 with the publication of Linnaeus's Species Plantarum, from the Brussels Rules (Briquet, Règles Int. Nomencl. Bot., ed. 2. 1912) until the Sydney Code (Voss & al. in Regnum Veg. 111. 1983), exceptions to this starting point were made for names in certain fungal groups adopted by Christiaan Persoon in 1801 and Elias Fries between 1821 and 1832. Although the starting date has been 1753 since 1983, names published in these works by Persoon and Fries (see Art. F.3.1 of the ICN) have been sanctioned, giving them precedence over earlier names that were not sanctioned (Art. F.3.2). Although some names were published in the genus Tuber prior to Fries, many were sanctioned by Fries (Syst. Mycol. 2: 289–293. 1823) and thus these names have priority over the earlier ones. Several names currently applied to Tuber species in Europe were published by Vittadini (Monogr. Tuberac. 1831), who did not always accept the names used by Fries (l.c.). Rather Vittadini (l.c.) applied names of his own or others to the same Friesian species. Yet the names in Tuber used by Vittadini (l.c.) are the ones commonly used over the past 190 years, whereas those published earlier and/or sanctioned by Fries (l.c.) have generally been ignored. Thus, we formally propose herein the conservation of the following three names: T. aestivum Vittad., T. magnatum Picco, and T. melanosporum Vittad. and the rejection of their competing names. Their typification as well as their taxonomic and nomenclatural situation were recently clarified by Leonardi & al. (in Cryptog. Mycol. 42: 149–170. 2021) with T. blotii typified herein. (2867) Tuber aestivum Vittad., Monogr. Tuberac.: 38. 1831, nom. cons. prop. Typus: [icon in] Vittadini, Monogr. Tuberac.: t. 2, fig. 4. 1831. MBT 10001890. Epitypus (vide Leonardi & al. in Cryptog. Mycol. 42: 151. 2021): Italy, Lombardy, Monza, Parco Villa Reale, sub Tilia cordata Mill., 8 Sep 2019, Seghezzi (AQUI No. 10150). MBT 10001891. (H) Tuber aestivum (Wulfen) Spreng., Syst. Veg. 4(1): 416. 1827 (ante 7 Jan) (Lycoperdon aestivum Wulfen in Jacquin, Collectanea 1: 349. Jan–Sep 1787), nom. rej. prop. Neotypus (vide Leonardi & al. in Cryptog. Mycol. 42: 154. 2021): Austria. Carinthia, St. Margareten, Gotschuchen, 8 Sep 1998, Krisai-Greilhuber, sub nomine Rhizopogon roseolus (WU-MYC No. 0025744). MBT 10001892. (=) Tuber blotii Eudes-Desl. in Mém. Soc. Linn. Calvados 1824: 47. 1824, nom. rej. prop. Lectotypus (hic designatus): [icon] “Tuber Blotii” in Mém. Soc. Linn. Calvados 1824: fig. 1–3. 1824. MBT 10005854. Tuber aestivum Vittad. (Monogr. Tuberac.: 38. 1831) has been used legally and commercially for this species of prized, edible truffle, commonly known as the summer truffle, found throughout Europe. One earlier name represents the same species, and an earlier homonym competes for use. However, the Vittadini name has been widely applied to this species and thus should be conserved. The name Tuber aestivum Vittad. was accepted by Tulasne & Tulasne (Fung. Hypog.: 137–138. 1851), who identified it as the truffle that in France was commonly called “truffle de la Saint-Jean”, providing an unmistakable illustration (l.c.: t. 7, fig. 3). Since then, in Italy and France, the most important countries in the production and trade of truffles, this species was indicated with the Vittadini name (Ferry de la Bellone, La Truffe: 37. 1888; Chátin, Truffe, ed. 2: 62. 1892; Mattirolo in Mem. Reale Accad. Sci. Torino, ser. 2, 53: 339. 1903). In other European countries, mycologists who dealt with truffles or edible mushrooms used the Vittadini name, as in Denmark (Lange, Danish Hypog. Macromycetes. 1956), Germany (Hesse, Hypog. Deutschl. 2: 14. 1894; Fischer in Rabenh. Krypt.-Fl., ed. 2, 1(5): 37. 1897), Great Britain (Berkeley & Broome in Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 2, 7: 183. 1851; Hawker in Philos. Trans., Ser. B 237: 495. 1954), and Hungary (Hollós, Magyarorsz. Földalatti Gombái: 36. 1911). In addition, Frank (in Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges. 3: 145, t. 10, fig. 7. 1885) described for the first time the phenomenon of mycorrhizal symbiosis using the name Tuber aestivum Vittad. for a mycorrhiza of this truffle formed with Fagus sylvatica. Leonardi & al. (in Cryptog. Mycol. 42: 151. 2021) lectotypified Tuber aestivum Vittad. by the illustration cited above. Tuber blotii is a name that was described and illustrated by Eudes-Deslongchamps in 1824. Its original material was studied by Maire (in Bull. Soc. Linn. Normandie, sér. 6, 4: viii–ix. 1910), who confirmed its identity as T. aestivum Vittad. The samples were probably lost during World War II. The building of the Institute Botanique de Caen was destroyed (https://www.repository.naturalis.nl/document/571005), and the remains of the collections were sent to the National Museum of Natural History (MNHN) in Paris, where this material could not be found. Consequently, the illustration from the original publication is designated herein as lectotype. Maire (in Bull. Soc. Mycol. France 46: 150. 1930) recognized the priority of T. blotii but preferred to use the name T. aestivum Vittad. because the binomial T. blotii had not been used except as a synonym of T. aestivum. The name T. blotii has never been used either commercially or in scientific research. Leonardi & al. (l.c.) examined the taxonomic situation of Lycoperdon aestivum Wulfen (in Jacquin, Collectanea 1: 349. 1787) and concluded that the fungus described was a species of Rhizopogon. Fries (Syst. Mycol. 2: 294. 1823) also considered L. aestivum to be a Rhizopogon, which he called Rhizopogon aestivus, thus sanctioning it. However, Sprengel (Syst. Veg. 4(1): 416. 1827) proposed the combination Tuber aestivum with the synonymy: “In Carinthia (Lycoperdon aestivum Wulff., Rhizopogon Fr.).” Thus, Tuber aestivum Vittad. is a later homonym (Art. 53.1). Tulasne & Tulasne (l.c.) included Rhizopogon aestivus as a synonym of their R. rubescens, the current name of which is R. roseolus (Corda) Th. Fr. Although several scientific publications of recent years have referred to the summer truffle as ‘T. aestivum (Wulf.) Spreng.’ instead of T. aestivum Vittad., this is erroneous because the basionym L. aestivum Wulfen refers to a Rhizopogon. Of these two scientific names that compete for use, Tuber aestivum is the more widely used as measured by a Restricted Google Scholar Search: T. blotii = 15, T. aestivum = 2830; and in GenBank: T. blotii = 0, T. aestivum = 4192, including data on the whole genome (Murat & al. in Nature, Ecol. Evol. 2: 1956–1965. 2018). (2868) Tuber magnatum Picco, Meleth. Inaugural.: 79. 1788, nom. cons. prop. Typus (vide Leonardi & al. in Cryptog. Mycol. 42: 160. 2021): Italy, Piedmont, Montechiaro D'Asti, Loc. Seria, with Quercus robur L. and Populus tremula L., 29 Sep 2019, Panzini (TO No. HG 3458). MBT 10001896. (=) Tuber griseum Pers., Syn. Meth. Fung.: 127. 1801, nom. sanct. (Fries, Syst. Mycol. 2: 292. 1823), nom. rej. prop. Lectotypus (vide Leonardi & al. in Cryptog. Mycol. 42: 161. 2021): [icon in] Borch, Lett. Truffes Piémont: fig. [1] A–G. 1780. MBT 10001897. Epitypus (vide Leonardi & al. in Cryptog. Mycol. 42: 161. 2021): Italy, Piedmont, Monte Magno, 7 Dec 1998, under Quercus robur, Gavazza (TO No. HG 3557). MBT 10001898. The Italian white truffle, also called the Piedmont white truffle, has long been known as Tuber magnatum. Vittadini (Monogr. Tuberac.: 42. 1831) applied the name T. magnatum Picco (Meleth. Inaugural.: 79. 1788) for this species and listed T. griseum as a synonym. Leonardi & al. (in Cryptog. Mycol. 42: 160. 2021) neotypified T. magnatum by the recently collected specimen cited above. Tuber griseum was sanctioned by Fries (Syst. Mycol. 2: 292. 1823); thus, this name T. griseum has precedence. Tuber magnatum has been widely used, while T. griseum remains obscure as evidenced by a Restricted Google Scholar Search: T. magnatum = 2320, T. griseum = 18; and GenBank: T. magnatum = 1233, including data on the whole genome (Murat & al. in Nature, Ecol. Evol. 2: 1956–1965. 2018), T. griseum = 0. It is proposed that the name Tuber magnatum be conserved against Tuber griseum (2869) Tuber melanosporum Vittad., Monogr. Tuberac.: 36. 1831, nom. cons. prop. Typus: [icon in] Vittadini, Monogr. Tuberac.: t. 2, fig. 3. 1831. MBT 10001899. Epitypus (vide Leonardi & al. in Cryptog. Mycol. 42: 161. 2021): Italy, Lombardy, Monza, Parco Villa Reale, sub Carpinus betulus and Tilia cordata, 1 Feb 2019, Seghezzi (AQUI No. 10152). MBT 10001900. (=) Tuber nigrum Bull., Herb. France 8(85–86): t. 356. 1788, nom. rej. prop. Lectotypus (vide Leonardi & al. in Cryptog. Mycol. 42: 162. 2021): [icon] “La Truffe noire” in Bulliard, Herb. France: t. 356. 1788. MBT 10001901. Epitypus (vide Leonardi & al. in Cryptog. Mycol. 42: 162. 2021): France. Lot 46090 Bellefont–La Rauze, 14 Dec 2019, Q. pubescens, Sourzat (AQUI No. 10208). MBT 10001902. Tuber melanosporum Vittad. (Monogr. Tuberac.: 36. 1831) is the scientific name that has been applied legally and commercially to this species, commonly known as the black truffle. The name was lectotypified by Leonardi & al. (in Cryptog. Mycol. 42: 161. 2021) by the illustration cited above. It competes with one other scientific name published earlier but rarely used. This first name applied to the black truffle was Tuber nigrum Bull. (Herb. France 8(85–86): t. 356. 1788). Vittadini (l.c.: 36) recognized the characteristic blackish spiny spores of T. melanosporum, thereby differentiating it from T. brumale Vittad. and the other warty black peridium species. Among these two names, T. melanosporum Vittad. is the more commonly used (Restricted Google Scholar Search: T. melanosporum = 5860, T. nigrum = 114; and GenBank: T. melanosporum = 103,946, including data on the whole genome [Martin & al. in Nature 464: 1033–1038. 2010], T. nigrum = 6). Thus, it is proposed that the name Tuber melanosporum be conserved against the earlier name T. nigrum. (2870) Tuber albidum Fr., Syst. Mycol. 2: 291. 1823, nom. rej. prop. Typus: non designatus. Fries (Syst. Mycol. 2: 291. 1823) published and thus sanctioned the name Tuber albidum with the diagnosis “verrucis exasperatum, albidum”, listing as synonyms “Tuber albidum Cæsalp. 616. Tuber aestivum pulpa subobscura &c. Mich. gen. p. 221 n. 2. Lycop. globosum, subsubterraneum &c. Gled. meth. p. 157.” Based on Fries's diagnosis, this name could refer to T. aestivum Vittad. (Monogr. Tuberac.: 38. 1831) and two references (Cesalpino, Pl. Libri XVI: 613–614. 1583 [not “616”]; Micheli, Nov. Pl. Gen.: 221. 1729) confirmed this. On the other hand, a third reference (Gleditsch, Meth. Fung.: 157. 1753) included in its diagnosis: “Lycoperdon globosum, subterraneum, solidum et scabrum” and in the subsequent discussion “[…] cortex albidus, eminentiis non nihil exasperatus […] substantia interior […] per maturitatem plus minus spongiosa, laxa, mollis, sicca et pulposa evadit”, suggesting that this name describes a Rhizopogon. Vittadini (l.c.: 38–39) proposed the name T. aestivum listing “Tub. albidum? Fries” as a synonym but he wrote in a commentary on the name (Vittadini, l.c.: 40): “Color externus albidus in Tuberibus muricatis mihi prorsus extraneus, suspectus. Hinc albidi nomen ambiguum.” We concur with Vittadini that T. albidum Fr. is a questionable species that does not agree with any known species of Tuber in which the warty peridium is black or deep brown (Bonito & al. in PLoS ONE 8(1): e52765. 2013, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052765). In attempting to typify T. albidum, Leonardi & al. (in Cryptog. Mycol. 42: 160. 2021) searched for the dried sample mentioned by Fries (l.c.: 291), but no specimen of T. albidum was found in the herbarium of Fries (UPS-FRIES) nor was a drawing of this taxon. Thus, we propose the rejection of the name Tuber albidum Fr. in application of Art. 56.1 of the Shenzhen Code. (2871) Tuber cibarium Bull., Hist. Champ. France: 74. 1791, nom. sanct. (Fries, Syst. Mycol. 2: 290. 1823), nom. rej. prop. Typus: non designatus. Bulliard (Hist. Champ. France.: 74. 1791) proposed the name Tuber cibarium for truffles having a warty black peridium. Within T. cibarium he recognized four main varieties, the first of which was listed as “1. Tub. cibarium nigrum, vid. Tuber nigrum, tab. 356.” The name T. cibarium Bull. was applied to the black truffle in the early literature (Withering, Bot. Arr. Brit. Pl., ed. 2, 3(2): 458. 1792; Sibthorp, Fl. Oxon.: 398. 1794; Sowerby, Col. Fig. Engl. Fung.: t. 309. 1800; Turpin, Dict. Sci. Nat. Pl. Bot. [1] Vég. Acot.: t. 46. 1821). The name T. cibarium, which would otherwise be a superfluous and illegitimate name for T. nigrum Bull., was sanctioned by Fries (Syst. Mycol. 2: 290. 1823) in close accordance with the treatment by Bulliard (l.c.). Bulliard gave the specific character of the species as “La Truffe comestible est la seule espèce de ce genre dont la surface soit comme verruqueuse, ou relevée de petites éminances à peu près prismatiques.” He included under this name not only the numerous species of black truffles now known in Europe (T. aestivum, T. brumale, T. macrosporum Vittad., T. melanosporum, T. mesentericum Vittad., T. bituminatum Berk. & Broome, T. malençonii Donadini & al., and T. suave Pacioni & M. Leonardi) but also unidentifiable white or greyish truffles. Given the confusion concerning the name, we propose the rejection of the name Tuber cibarium Bull. in application of Art. 56.1 of the Shenzhen Code. GP, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0201-5789 JMT, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2032-1904 ML, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3502-4232 AYR, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8191-2663