Technical Abstract: We believe that the decision at the 2011 Melbourne Botanical Congress to suppress the dual nomenclature for pleomorphic fungi was premature since the great majority of fungal genera still remain inadequately typified and need molecularly based revisions. We deplore the move from a clearly rule-determined nomenclature to a system of names to be decided by committees. The new system cannot be implemented until experts publish well justified recommendations about which generic names should be accepted and suppressed among alternative morphs before the responsible committees act officially. Prioritization vs. suppression is not the same as conservation vs. rejection. If a teleomorphic generic name is suppressed, it still remains valid and legitimate and can continue to serve as basis for names of higher-rank taxa. We present some suggestions with examples to help guide the impending work of these nomenclatural committees: In most cases the teleomorph genus name should be prioritized unless convincing arguments favor preference of the anamorphic name. Paraphyletic genera must be recognized. Unless the phylogenetic positions of all type species for possible morphs are confirmed, no prioritization can be fixed. When a species has a name in the prioritized genus that is younger than the corresponding name in the suppressed genus, only priority of extant names in the prioritized genus should count.