Pleosporales - CBS - KNAW

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Fungal Diversity n=10), 8-spored, bitunicate, fissitunicate dehiscence not observed, cylindrical but narrowing towards the base, with a short, furcate pedicel which is 10–25 μm long, ocular chamber not observed (Fig. 70d and e). Ascospores 110– 160×2.5–4 μm (x ¼ 135:3 3mm, n=10), filamentous, narrower toward the lower end, pale brown, 22–30- septate, separating into two partspores from the middle septum, from the breaking point the second cell of each partspore enlarged. Anamorph: none reported. Material examined: GERMANY, near Kassel, on dead stem of Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop., Spring 1853 (BPI- 629021, type). Notes Morphology Ophiobolus was established by Reiss (1854) as a monotypic genus represented by O. disseminans based on its “Perithecia discreta, ostiolis prominentibus: sporae ascis inclusae, binatae, filliformes, multiseptatae”. A broad generic concept was adopted for the genus by Holm (1948) and Müller (1952). Shoemaker (1976)surveyed Canadian species of Ophiobolus using the broad concept of Holm (1948) and Müller (1952). A narrower generic concept was used by Holm (1957), which only included species with ascospores separating into two halves. Holm (1957) assigned species with enlarged ascospore cells to Nodulosphaeria,and those with long spirally coiled ascospores to Leptospora (Shoemaker 1976). This left only three species accepted under Ophiobolus (Holm 1957), although this concept has rarely been followed with new species recently being described (Raja and Shearer 2008). Walker (1980) provided a detailed description from the type material and dealt with many species of scolecospored fungi that had been placed in Ophiobolus by Saccardo (1883). Thus, currently several Ophiobolus sensu lato species are separated into Acanthophiobolus, Entodesmium, Leptosphaeria and Leptospora. Ophiobolus sensu lato contains about 300 species names (Sivanesan 1984; http:// www.mycobank.org/, 04/02/2009). Phylogenetic study Ophiobolus fulgidus (Cooke & Peck) Sacc. (as Leptosphaeria fulgida (Cooke & Peck) M. E. Barr in Dong et al. 1998) lacks support in the clade of Leptosphaeriaceae (Dong et al. 1998). We expect it may closely related to Phaeosphaeriaceae. Concluding remarks We agree from morphological data that Ophiobolus should comprise species that have filamentous spores that break easily into two halves at the central septum, with the second cell on either side being swollen (Walker 1980) and that the genus presently comprises three species (i.e. O. anthrisci (L. Holm) L. Holm, O. ophioboloides (Sacc.) L. Holm and O. acuminatus). All other Ophiobolus species need to be re-examined and should be placed in other genera such as Nodulosphaeria and Leptospora. The genus is in need of revision and molecular phylogenetic study. Ophiosphaerella Speg., Anal. Mus. nac. Hist. nat. B. Aires 19: 401–402 (1909). (Phaeosphaeriaceae) Generic description Habitat terrestrial, saprobic or hemibiotrophic. Ascomata small- to medium-sized, solitary or scattered, immersed, globose or subglobose, papillate, ostiolate. Peridium thin. Hamathecium of dense, filliform, septate pseudoparaphyses. Asci bitunicate, fissitunicate dehiscence not observed, cylindrical often narrower near the base, with a short furcate pedicel. Ascospores filamentous, pale brown, multi-septate. Anamorphs reported for genus: Scolecosporiella (Farr et al. 1989). Literature: von Arx and Müller 1975; Schoch et al. 2006, 2009; Spegazzini 1909; Walker 1980; Wetzel et al. 1999; Zhang et al. 2009a. Type species Ophiosphaerella graminicola Speg., Anal. Mus. nac. Hist. nat. B. Aires 19: 401 (1909). (Fig. 71) Ascomata 280–325 μm high×250–300 μm diam., solitary or scattered, immersed with a short papilla protruding out of the substrate, globose or subglobose, often laterally flattened, dark brown to black, papillate, papilla ca. 100μm high, 140– 180 μm broad, disk-like in appearance from above, periphysate (Fig. 71a and b). Peridium 11–25 μm wide, thicker near the apex, comprising two cell types of small cells, outer wall composed 6–10 layers of lightly brown flattened cells of textura angularis, inner layer composed of paler and thinwalled cells, both layers thicker near the apex (Fig. 71b). Hamathecium of dense, long pseudoparaphyses 0.8–1.5 μm broad near the apex, septate, 2–3 μm broad between the asci. Asci 105–135×5.5–10 μm (x ¼ 118:5 7mm, n=10), 8- spored, bitunicate, cylindrical and narrower near the base, with a short, furcate pedicel, up to 30 μm long, small inconspicuous ocular chamber (to 1.5 μm wide× 1 μm high) (Fig. 71c, d, e and f). Ascospores 100–125× 1.8–2.2 μm (x ¼ 118 2mm, n=10), filamentous, pale brown, 12–20 septa, smooth-walled. Anamorph: none reported. Material examined: ARGENTINA, Tucumán, on leaf sheath of Leptochloa virgata (L.) P. Beauv., 14 Apr. 1906, C. Spegazzini (LPS 858, holotype).
Fungal Diversity Fig. 70 Ophiobolus disseminans (from BPI-629021, type). a Immersed ascomata scattered on the host surface. Note the erumpent papilla. b Section of an ascoma. c. Section of a partial peridium. Note the thick-walled outer layer and thin-walled inner layer (orange colour due to DIC). d Ascus with a short furcate pedicel. e Squash mount showing asci in pseudoparaphyses. Scale bars: a=0.5 mm, b=100 μm, c=50 μm, d, e=20 μm Notes Morphology Ophiosphaerella was introduced by Spegazzini (1909) who described and illustrated a single new species, O. graminicola, and thus the genus was validly published (Walker 1980, p. 70). After checking the type specimen, Petrak and Sydow (1936) transferred the generic type to Ophiobolus graminicolus (Speg.) Petrak & Syd, and assigned Ophiosphaerella as a synonym of Ophiobolus. This was followed by von Arx and Müller (1975). Ophiosphaerella differs from Phaeosphaeria by its scolecospores without swollen cells or appendages, and from Ophiobolus by its ascospores without swollen cells or separating into partspores, thus was kept as a separating genus (Eriksson 1967a; Walker 1980). Phylogenetic study Ophiosphaerella forms a monophyletic group as a sister group of Phaeosphaeria located in Phaeosphaeriaceae (Schoch et al. 2006, 2009; Wetzel et al. 1999; Zhang et al. 2009a). Concluding remarks Numerous Ophiobolus species are likely to belong in Ophiosphaerella. The two genera are distinguished as Ophiobolus sensu Shoemaker (1976) has swollen central cells or breaking into partspores or with long spirally coiled ascospores, and Ophiosphaerella (sensu Walker
Page 1 and 2:
Fungal Diversity DOI 10.1007/s13225
Page 3 and 4:
Fungal Diversity Table 1 Major circ
Page 5 and 6:
Fungal Diversity
Page 7 and 8:
Fungal Diversity biocontrol agent o
Page 9 and 10:
Fungal Diversity substrates and man
Page 11 and 12:
Fungal Diversity 2. To investigate
Page 13 and 14:
Fungal Diversity Table 3 (continued
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Fungal Diversity
Page 21 and 22:
Fungal Diversity Fig. 2 Aigialus gr
Page 23 and 24:
Fungal Diversity Fig. 3 Amniculicol
Page 25 and 26:
Fungal Diversity Literature: Berkel
Page 27 and 28:
Fungal Diversity Ascorhombispora L.
Page 29 and 30:
Fungal Diversity
Page 31 and 32:
Fungal Diversity Fig. 8 Astrosphaer
Page 33 and 34:
Fungal Diversity Fig. 9 Asymmetrico
Page 35 and 36:
Fungal Diversity Notes Morphology B
Page 37 and 38:
Fungal Diversity Generic descriptio
Page 39 and 40:
Fungal Diversity Anamorph: none rep
Page 41 and 42:
Fungal Diversity Fig. 14 Bimuria no
Page 43 and 44:
Fungal Diversity Fig. 15 Bricookea
Page 45 and 46:
Fungal Diversity Fig. 16 Byssolophi
Page 47 and 48:
Fungal Diversity Notes Morphology B
Page 49 and 50:
Fungal Diversity the reaction of pe
Page 51 and 52:
Fungal Diversity
Page 53 and 54:
Fungal Diversity Fig. 21 Chaetomast
Page 55 and 56:
Fungal Diversity
Page 57 and 58:
Fungal Diversity Fig. 23 Cilioplea
Page 59 and 60:
Fungal Diversity with one or two ve
Page 61 and 62:
Fungal Diversity Moreau 1953; Munk
Page 63 and 64:
Fungal Diversity Material examined:
Page 65 and 66:
Fungal Diversity Fig. 28 Dothidotth
Page 67 and 68:
Fungal Diversity Fig. 29 Dubitatio
Page 69 and 70:
Fungal Diversity assigned Entodesmi
Page 71 and 72:
Fungal Diversity fusoid to somewhat
Page 73 and 74:
Fungal Diversity Fig. 33 Hadrospora
Page 75 and 76:
Fungal Diversity Fig. 34 Halotthia
Page 77 and 78:
Fungal Diversity Notes Morphology H
Page 79 and 80:
Fungal Diversity some effused Hypox
Page 81 and 82:
Fungal Diversity Fig. 38 Isthmospor
Page 83 and 84: Fungal Diversity Fig. 39 Kalmusia e
Page 85 and 86: Fungal Diversity ascospores were br
Page 87 and 88: Fungal Diversity furcate pedicel an
Page 89 and 90: Fungal Diversity Anamorph: none rep
Page 91 and 92: Fungal Diversity
Page 93 and 94: Fungal Diversity Material examined:
Page 95 and 96: Fungal Diversity Fig. 46 Lewia scro
Page 97 and 98: Fungal Diversity Fig. 47 Lichenopyr
Page 99 and 100: Fungal Diversity Loculohypoxylon M.
Page 101 and 102: Fungal Diversity cells small heavil
Page 103 and 104: Fungal Diversity upper place, septa
Page 107 and 108: Fungal Diversity (CBS 627.86) was i
Page 109 and 110: Fungal Diversity Fig. 54 Mamillisph
Page 111 and 112: Fungal Diversity Fig. 55 Massarina
Page 113 and 114: Fungal Diversity phaeria as a synon
Page 115 and 116: Fungal Diversity 5-8 μm diam., ind
Page 117 and 118: Fungal Diversity cell wall
Page 119 and 120: Fungal Diversity Fig. 60 Mixtura sa
Page 121 and 122: Fungal Diversity Fig. 61 Montagnula
Page 123 and 124: Fungal Diversity spored, bitunicate
Page 125 and 126: Fungal Diversity Fig. 64 Murispora
Page 127 and 128: Fungal Diversity Type species Neoph
Page 129 and 130: Fungal Diversity brown, 8-septate,
Page 131 and 132: Fungal Diversity Fig. 68 Ohleria mo
Page 133: Fungal Diversity Fig. 69 Ohleriella
Page 137 and 138: Fungal Diversity Type species Ostro
Page 141 and 142: Fungal Diversity (Shoemaker and Bab
Page 143 and 144: Fungal Diversity ium thin, composed
Page 145 and 146: Fungal Diversity Fig. 76 Platysporo
Page 147 and 148: Fungal Diversity Fig. 77 1 Pleomass
Page 149 and 150: Fungal Diversity Fig. 78 Pleophragm
Page 151 and 152: Fungal Diversity papillate, ostiola
Page 153 and 154: Fungal Diversity Williams 1963; Mal
Page 155 and 156: Fungal Diversity Generic descriptio
Page 157 and 158: Fungal Diversity composed of one ce
Page 159 and 160: Fungal Diversity Fig. 84 Saccharico
Page 161 and 162: Fungal Diversity and nearly black a
Page 163 and 164: Fungal Diversity dense, long trabec
Page 169 and 170: Fungal Diversity Anamorphs reported
Page 175 and 176: Fungal Diversity Fig. 94 Westerdyke
Page 177 and 178: Fungal Diversity Fig. 95 Wettsteini
Page 179 and 180: Fungal Diversity Fig. 96 Wilmia bra
Page 181 and 182: Fungal Diversity Current name: Astr
Page 183 and 184: Fungal Diversity spores are actuall
Page 185 and 186:
Fungal Diversity Fig. 100 Sporormie
Page 187 and 188:
Fungal Diversity
Page 189 and 190:
Fungal Diversity Fig. 102 Kriegerie
Page 191 and 192:
Fungal Diversity Phylogenetic study
Page 193 and 194:
Fungal Diversity Fig. 104 Zeuctomor
Page 195 and 196:
Fungal Diversity Fig. 105 Muroia ni
Page 197 and 198:
Fungal Diversity pseudoparenchymato
Page 199 and 200:
Fungal Diversity Eremodothis Arx, K
Page 201 and 202:
Fungal Diversity Type species: Macr
Page 203 and 204:
Fungal Diversity ascospores of Plat
Page 205 and 206:
Fungal Diversity monoceras Alcorn n
Page 207 and 208:
Fungal Diversity tomataceae, Melano
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Fungal Diversity 1987b). Based on a
Page 213 and 214:
Fungal Diversity only do so under v
Page 215 and 216:
Fungal Diversity Dennis RWG (1968)
Page 217 and 218:
Fungal Diversity Kirk PM, Cannon PF
Page 219 and 220:
Fungal Diversity Saccardo PA (1880)
Page 221:
Fungal Diversity Winter G (1887) As
show all

Pleosporales - CBS - KNAW

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?