XVI International Botanical Congess

Arguments are made against the proposed 1:1 correlation between teleomorph and anamorph genera. If teleomorph and anamorph genera are forced to be equivalent, they represent identical phylogenies and taxonomic ranks. The information content of anamorph names is lost. If tissues or organs represented by anamorph names are homologous, the use of natural (rather than monophyletic) generic names relays concepts about relationships that would otherwise be obscured. Homologous tissues or organs should not have different names if those phenotypes are lost in paraphyletic lineages. The co-occurrence of homologous and nonhomologous synanamorphs makes amalgamation of arbitrary combinations into pleomorphic anamorph genera potentially confusing. Anamorph names in dual nomenclature are nouns representing homologous phenotypes, and holomorphic names reflect phylogeny of entire genomes.