Fungi were plants in the west too until the early 80s. Anyone old enough to be making a speech on TV in 1991 would have probably thought of them as plants regardless of their country.
Think of it like old astronomers who still refer to Pluto as a planet. They know it's not officially a planet anymore, but they still call it one because that's what they like calling it and they don't give a shit.
Most older mycologists still use the scientific names from before DNA sequencing in casual conversation. It's not that they don't know the new ones, they do, but that's just what they like calling them and they're fine with the younger generation waiting for them to die or whatever.
And let's be honest...."official" in that case just means, "what other people think."
While one of those entries is strictly fictional, if Pluto belongs on the list there's no reason to exclude Ceres or Eris (though in the true spirit of Discordianism, I have to stick with the initial, fictional name for the final known planet).
An echinoderm
What brought about the change? Was some difference between them discovered or was it a matter of deciding that it would be more convenient to give them separate names?
>The close relationship between animals and fungi was suggested by Thomas Cavalier-Smith in 1987
>Early phylogenies placed fungi near the plants [...]