Some workers hold that this is an obsolete concept, and that molecular phylogeny allows accurate placement of species which are known from only part of their life cycle.
[1] Historically, Article 59 of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature permitted mycologists to give asexually reproducing fungi (anamorphs) separate names from their sexual states (teleomorphs);[2] but this practice was discontinued as of 1 January 2013.
[4] However, it is essential for workers in plant pathology, mold identification, medical mycology, and food microbiology, fields in which asexually reproducing fungi are commonly encountered.
[clarification needed] The separate names for anamorphs of fungi with a pleomorphic life-cycle has been an issue of debate since the phenomenon was recognized in the mid-19th century.
[3] This possibility of abandoning the dual nomenclatural system was debated at subsequent International Mycological Congresses and on other occasions, and the need for change was increasingly recognized.
[3] Matters were becoming increasingly desperate as mycologists using molecular phylogenetic approaches started to ignore the provisions, or interpret them in different ways.
[3] The problem of choosing one name among many remains to be examined for many large, agriculturally or medically-important genera like Aspergillus and Fusarium.