INTRODUCTION

"The Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) includes several specific sets of rules that have been introduced to comply with the needs of certain disciplines such as mycology. The most outstanding mycological provision is Art. 59 which grants an exception to the principle IV of the Code: one organism - one name. This ruling has served mycologists well in the one and a half centuries that the morphological recognition of teleomorphic and anamorphic sporulating structures existed side-by-side, with only occasional cross-links between correlated morphs. This system was workable but it had the disadvantage that dual names for interconnected taxa confuse users and anamorph names did not show any affinities to particular higher ranks in teleomorph classification (Seifert & Samuels, 2000; Cannon & Kirk, 2000). Although lists of organic connections recognized between anamorphs and teleomorphs have been published (Sutton, 1977; Kendrick & Di Cosmo, 1979; Kendrick & Watling, 1979; Sutton, 1980; Carmichael et al., 1980; Kendrick ), and shall be extended in the near future (Seifert et al., 2002), a residue of anamorphic fungi will remain unconnected, which either possess hidden mechanisms of sexuality like a parasexual cycle or have lost sexuality all together. Thanks to the advent of molecular methods, a more sophisticated phylogenetic taxonomy can be established in which anamorph taxa can be more or less fully integrated in the teleomorph-based classification. ..."