[brutos]

That has already happened. The NCBI maintains a taxonomy tree: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?id=...

In this case human the identifier of human is 9606, all kinds of stuff about the human can be queried through this ID. All fungi are classified somewhere under the node 4751. (Even though this website looks awful, its one of the better and most useful resources of the NCBI.)

However this whole taxonomy business is a pretty difficult issue. According to the article, fungal research is (was?) wasting time on morphology. However, even though taxonomic classification through phylogeny is probably a massive improvement, it doesn't solve all issues. In this framework a species is usually defined by some sequence identity cutoff of ultra conserved proteins in the genome. This works probably pretty well for for most eukaryots, however becomes somewhat of an odd measure for bacteria, where two of the same bacteria can have a very low sequence identity of highly conserved proteins. Then you also have another issue, that once you want to classify a new organism, you might only find contaminated, miss classified or in any other way bad entries in the reference databases. Morphology as a sanity check probably makes sense.

Its a big field with a lot of different trade-offs trying to be united under one umbrella. There are no silver bullets.