R. Zare
AIMC 2001 Secretary

Professor Sharif, Professor Ershad, Mr. Keshawarz, Mr. Shariatmadary, Dr. Kalantari, Dr. Ghareyazi, Dr. Abdollahi, Professor Banihashemi, Dr. Zare, dear friends,

This Asian International Mycological Congress is coming to a close. I am pleased to say a few words on this occasion. I was honoured several times during this meeting in quite an unexpected way and I have some doubts whether I deserve so much honour. I was simply in the very fortunate position to find an excellent collaborator in Rasoul Zare, and together we were able to do some useful work that we presented here. The name of this congress, “international”, is perhaps not quite justified. This is mainly due to the deplorable events in the USA. Let us hope that no further disasters will follow. All the more important is the strong representation of Iranian mycologists. The congress has achieved something. The flexibility of the organizers allowed for a smooth sequence of events, and the papers were scheduled in a relaxed way, with little time constraint.

From the outset, taxonomy had a prime position in the planning and programme of the congress, followed by plant pathology and biological control. In the diagram of mycological disciplines on the cover of the programme, borrowed from Moss (1987), the word ‘Taxonomy’ should stand in the central position, next to the word Fungi. Two general papers emphasizing the importance of taxonomy were not presented, viz. those by Subramanian and Sarbhoy. Nevertheless, I feel that it is clear to the audience that systematics is at the root to all other mycological disciplines; taxonomy has a service function but it is a science in itself. Those practicing it experience a lifelong process of learning and then they can forecast many biological effects of fungi simply from understanding their taxonomic interrelationships, making much routine experimentation superfluous. Taxonomy nowadays has a double basis, morphology and molecular biology (apart from secondary metabolites and other components). Neither of them can exist without the other. With the progress of molecular taxonomy, the morphological approach is becoming less popular, because in the long run it is probably more difficult and it requires more experience. I am particularly glad to see that in countries like Iran, much enthusiasm still persists for inventorying morphological taxonomy. That is a relatively low-cost approach that can yield excellent results, particularly if backed up with expertise from specialists abroad. It is a misconception that only expensive research can yield valuable results.

I was most pleased to meet many young enthusiastic mycologists here and it will be a great pleasure to me and undoubtedly my fellow mycologists to support their work in the future. I am sure that the personal contact now established has removed some thresholds that otherwise might prevent scientific exchange. Paraphrasing Sarbhoy’s title, I do not think that we currently are seeing a revitalization of taxonomy, as if the patient had been nearly dead. On the contrary, it is more alive than ever. I notice that the leading molecular taxonomists of these days also have a good morphological knowledge of fungi, at least in the United States. It may remain rare that both capacities are found jointly in one and the same person (I am not a molecular taxonomist at all), but the collaboration of both disciplines is indispensable. In Iran you have not only an extremely old and admirable culture and art (as we have appreciated in the musical performance during the congress), but also a good mycological tradition. It is gratifying that some people can reliably identify a Fusarium and a Trichoderma here. You do not find this in many countries any more.

I shall not summarize all the detailed studies presented here. Some of them are carried out in collaboration with experts in other countries. It is not surprising that these studies reach the highest standard, although authors working in isolation still face many problems.

I particularly wish to say a few words on biological control. It is not accidental that taxonomy and ecology of organisms relevant to biological control have held particular interest for me. The success of biological control generally is less certain and less dramatic than that of chemical control. Usually, biological control is ecologically safer but not always. It requires much more ecological understanding than activating a chemical cannon. Therefore and because of some bureaucratic restraints against application of living organisms, many workers on biological control strategies tend to give up. Biological control is not good for big industry because it is not to be applied on a very large scale in space and time, nor for many crops at the same time. But small firms increasingly earn their money with it. Moreover, agriculture in Europe is undergoing drastic changes and chemical control is increasingly limited; in particular, it has been completely eliminated from ‘ecological agriculture’, which is strongly propagated and financially supported. Thus, if biological control is progressing in Europe, it will be all the more likely to prove its justification in developing countries, where small scale agriculture is practiced with little energy input and relatively cheap labour forces. But this labour force will need adequate training, as Prof. Deadman has very rightly emphasized.

With these comments I dare say that this congress has contributed a few pieces to the puzzle of mycological research and, particularly, has established some promising personal contacts. We all have followed both oral and poster presentations, with great satisfaction. From my side I wish to thank the Organizing Committee for the enormous work of preparation and their care during the Congress. Also the local staff did their best for us, so that we keep the Congress in excellent memory. Let us give them all a warm applause.