Did Mussat make new combinations in Sylloge Fungorum XV, 1901?

Abstract

Recently, two homonymous combinations, each based on a unique type and credited to different authorities, were used for the destructive mycoparasite Clonostachys rosea. The existence of the binomial Clonostachys rosea (Preuss) Mussat 1901 would render the more recently established C. rosea (Link : Fr.) Schroers et al. 1999 illegitimate. A textual analysis proves, however, that Mussat's combination Clonostachys rosea is invalid according to Article 34.1 (a) and (c) of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. We know of no formally published instance where Preuss himself raised Clonostachys araucaria var. rosea Preuss to species level. Therefore, the name Clonostachys rosea Preuss, as it was listed by Mussat, cannot be regarded as valid either. Similarly, the binomials Alternaria citri (Penzig) Mussat, Alternaria macrospora (Sacc.) Mussat and Clonostachys compacta (Preuss) Mussat cannot be regarded as having been validly published by Mussat.