Abstract
Plant pathogenic fungi have long been documented through concerted efforts of mycologists and plant pathologists; these records have served as the basis for regional and countrywide checklists which have since been put into databases listing hosts and associated fungi. They are used by governments and scientists to formulate trade quarantine policies and determine research funding, such as in plant breeding programs and disease control. With the ability to use molecular characters to study the systematics of fungi it is clear that morphologically defined species are often large complexes comprised of genetically and biologically distinct species. Use of molecular techniques to examine species complexes has revealed cryptic species in many important plant pathogenic genera, e. g. Botryosphaeria, Colletotrichum, Fusarium, and Mycosphaerella. It has occurred to such an extent that existing checklists and databases need updating. It is important that the data from these studies, including changes in taxonomy and nomenclature, be incorporated into the databases of plant pathogenic fungi to support accurate plant quarantine decisions. In addition, epitypifying fungi by re-collecting material from type habitats and isolating the organism into pure culture will provide essential materials for systematics studies to further clarify the taxonomy and phylogeny of plant pathogenic fungi. Overall, we conclude that disease lists are likely to be highly outdated and advocate the need for countrywide re-inventory of plant pathogens. As a result of these studies, tools can be developed that use morphological or molecular characters, or both, to promote accurate identification of plant pathogenic fungi.