Elsevier Editorial System(tm) for Mycological ... - Clark University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$Subspaces of Vector Spaces Math 130 Linear Algebra$

Order: Dimargaritales R. K. Benj., in Kendrick (ed.), Whole Fungus 2: 607 (1979). Benj. 1959. Exemplar genera: Dimargaris Tiegh. 1875, Dispira Tiegh. 1875, Tieghemiomyces R.K. Order: Harpellales Lichtw. & Manier, Mycotaxon 7: 441 (1978). The taxa in this order have been referred to as "Trichomycetes" However, Trichomycetes is no longer a useful phylogenetic taxon because it describes a polyphyletic group. The use of the term should be restricted to ecological rather than phylogenetic groupings, and not capitalized or italicized, i.e. as "trichomycetes". Exemplar genera: Harpella L. Léger & Duboscq 1929, Furculomyces Lichtw. & M. C. Williams 1992, Legeriomyces Pouzar 1972, Smittium R. Poiss. 1937. Order: Asellariales Manier ex Manier & Lichtw., Mycotaxon 7: 442 (1978). 1968. Exemplar genera: Asellaria R. Poiss. 1932, Orchesellaria Manier ex Manier & Lichtw. Asellariales are retained in the Fungi here due to their ultrastructural characteristics (Benny & White 2001; Manier 1973; Moss 1975; Saikawa et al. 1997). Unpublished rpb1 and rpb2 data also support their placement in the Kickxellomycotina (T. Y. James & M. M. White, unpubl.). Subkingdom: Dikarya Hibbett, T. Y. James & Vilgalys, subregnum nov. MycoBank no.: MB 501285 Synonym: Neomycota Cavl.-Sm., Rev. Biol. 73: 209 (1998). Fungi unicellulares vel filamentosi, flagellis carentes, saepe stadium dikaryoticum includentes. Ascomycota et Basidiomycota complectens. 28
Unicellular or filamentous Fungi, lacking flagella, often with a dikaryotic state. The least-inclusive clade that contains Ascomycota and Basidiomycota. The name alludes to the putative synapomorphy of dikaryotic hyphae (Tehler 1988) and was applied by James et al. (2006) without <strong>for</strong>mal description. Kendrick (1985) and Tehler et al. (2003) referred to this group as the Dikaryomycota, but the termination "–mycota" denotes the rank of phylum under the Code. Cavalier-Smith (1998) referred to this group as Neomycota. Dikarya is used here, because it is more descriptive and is consistent with recent use (James et al. 2006; Tehler et al. 2003; Kendrick 1985). Phylum: Ascomycota Bold ex Caval.-Sm., Biol. Rev. 73: 247 (1998), as "Ascomycota Berk. 1857. stat. nov." Synonyms: Ascomycetes Berk., Intr. Crypt. Bot.: 270 (1857), rank uncertain; Whittaker (1959: 220). Ascomycota Bold, Morph. Pl.: 7, 180 (1958), nomen nudum; Hawksworth et al. (1995: 30), Eriksson & Winka (1997: 4), etc, nomina nuda. Basic type: Peziza Fr. 1822. Cavalier-Smith was not the first to propose the phylum name Ascomycota. It seems it was first used by Bold (1958: 7, 180), but without a Latin diagnosis. The name was in widespread use by that time, and its usage was popularized by its employment in the eighth edition of the Dictionary, which is listed in Cavallier-Smith's (1998) bibliography. As in the case of the name Fungi, the first author to use phylum status is recognized in this author citation. The Latin diagnosis provided by Cavalier-Smith consisted of only two words: "sporae intracellulares". It is questionable whether this description is 29
Page 1 and 2: Elsevier Editorial System(tm) for M
Page 3 and 4: Cover Letter February 8, 2007 Dr. D
Page 5 and 6: A higher-level phylogenetic classif
Page 7 and 8: 18 Institute of Applied Ecology, Ch
Page 9 and 10: 47 Systematic Mycology and Lichenol
Page 11 and 12: classifications. Two important work
Page 13 and 14: promote communication and awareness
Page 15 and 16: summarized in Tables 1-3, which lis
Page 17 and 18: Pucciniomycotina, and Ustilaginomyc
Page 19 and 20: Many of the citations and authoriti
Page 21 and 22: Class: Chytridiomycetes Caval.-Sm.,
Page 23 and 24: ibosomal aggregation, and rumposome
Page 25 and 26: Synonym: Allomycetes Caval.-Sm., Bi
Page 27 and 28: Order: Paraglomerales C. Walker & A
Page 29 and 30: Fungi pathogenici obligate animalib
Page 31: Synonym: Zoopagales Bessey, Morph.
Page 35 and 36: Class: Pneumocystidomycetes O. E. E
Page 37 and 38: Order: Dothideales Lindau, in Engle
Page 39 and 40: Lichenized, parasitic, and saprobic
Page 41 and 42: Order: Onygenales Cif. ex Benny & K
Page 43 and 44: vel infirme ramosae, septatae, medi
Page 45 and 46: Exemplar genera: Coccocarpia Pers.
Page 47 and 48: Lecanoromycetes incertae sedis (not
Page 49 and 50: Based on current character and taxo
Page 51 and 52: Order: Coronophorales Nannf., Nova
Page 53 and 54: Order: Coniochaetales Huhndorf, A.
Page 55 and 56: Exemplar genera: Huangshania O. E.
Page 57 and 58: Order: Cystobasidiales R. Bauer, Be
Page 59 and 60: Exemplar genera: Microbotryum Lév.
Page 61 and 62: Class: Ustilaginomycetes R. Bauer,
Page 63 and 64: Emend. Bauer, Oberwinkler & Vánky,
Page 65 and 66: Order: Cystofilobasidiales Fell, Ro
Page 67 and 68: Order: Agaricales Underw., Moulds,
Page 69 and 70: phylogenetics of Cantharellales. An
Page 71 and 72: cylindrical or suballantoid, with t
Page 73 and 74: subicular hyphae with or without am
Page 75 and 76: REFERENCES 1 Adl SM, Simpson AGB, F
Page 77 and 78: Begerow D, Bauer R, Oberwinkler F,
Page 79 and 80: Clements FE, Shear CL. 1931. The Ge
Page 81 and 82: Galagan JE, Henn MR, Ma L-J, Cuomo
Page 83 and 84:
Lecanoromycetes (Ascomycota). Molec
Page 85 and 86:
Keeling PJ, 2003. Congruent evidenc
Page 87 and 88:
Lindau G, 1896. Hysteriineae. In: E
Page 89 and 90:
Margulis L, Corliss JO, Melkonian M
Page 92 and 93:
Nannfeldt JA, 1932. Studien über d
Page 94 and 95:
Sampaio JP, Gadanho M, Bauer R, Wei
Page 96 and 97:
Sugiyama J, Hosaka K, Suh S-O, 2007
Page 98 and 99:
Glomeromycota. Mycological Research
Page 100 and 101:
Sordariomycetes systematics: An ove
Page 102 and 103:
MICROSPORIDIA Kickxellales Dimargar
Page 104 and 105:
Agaricostilbales Agaricostilbomycet
Page 106 and 107:
James et al. (2007) lsu, ssu, 5.8S
Page 108 and 109:
Table 2. Support for major groups o
Page 110 and 111:
MPbs < 50 SC Dothideomycetidae Scho
Page 112 and 113:
4 Bpp = 1.00 MLbs = 100 WPbs > 70 9
Page 114 and 115:
pb2, tef1 MLbs = 93 Bpp = 1.00 Miad
Page 116 and 117:
Reeb et al. (2004, fig. 1) lsu, ssu
Page 118 and 119:
tef1 WPbs = 96 MLbs = 90 Bpp = 1.00
Page 120 and 121:
Bpp = 1.00 Miller & Huhndorf (2005,
Page 122 and 123:
Table 3. Support for major groups o
Page 124 and 125:
Sampaio (2004, fig. 1) lsu 7 Bpp =
Page 126 and 127:
O Ustilaginales Matheny et al. (200
Page 128 and 129:
pb2, tef1 MPbs = 50-69 Fell et al.
Page 130:
Larsson et al. (2007, fig. 3) lsu,
show all

Elsevier Editorial System(tm) for Mycological ... - Clark University

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?