Pleosporales - CBS - KNAW

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Fungal Diversity Pleosporineae (suborder of Pleosporales) (Zhang et al. 2009a). A detailed study was conducted on the Didymellaceae based on LSU, SSU rDNA, ITS as well as β-tubulin, which indicated that many Phoma or Phoma-related species/fungi reside in this clade of the Didymellaceae (Aveskamp et al. 2010). Didymosphaeriaceae Munk 1953 The Didymosphaeriaceae was introduced by Munk (1953), and was revived by Aptroot (1995) based on its distoseptate ascospores and trabeculate pseudoparaphyses, mainly anastomosing above the asci. The familial status of the Didymosphaeriaceae is debatable, and Lumbsch and Huhndorf (2007) assigned it to the Montagnulaceae, while von Arx and Müller (1975) treated it as a synonym of the Pleosporaceae. Inthis study, Didymosphaeria futilis (the generic type of Didymosphaeria) is closely related to the Cucurbitariaceae (Plate 1). Herein, we accept it as a separate family containing three genera, namely Appendispora, Didymosphaeria and Phaeodothis. More information could only be obtained by further molecular work based on correctly identified strains. Dothidotthiaceae Crous & A.J.L. Phillips 2008 Dothidotthiaceae was introduced to accommodate the single genus Dothidotthia, which is characterized by gregarious, erumpent, globose ascomata, hyaline, septate pseudoparaphyses, 8-spored, bitunicate, clavate asci, ellipsoid, 1- septate ascospores, and has anamorphic Thyrostroma (Phillips et al. 2008). In this study, Dothidotthiaceae is closely related to Didymellaceae, but it is still treated as a separate family (Plate 1). Hypsostromataceae Huhndorf 1994 Hypsostromataceae was introduced based on two tropical genera (i.e. Hypsostroma and Manglicola), which have superficial, large, elongate ascomata with a soft-textured, pseudoparenchymatic wall, trabeculate pseudoparaphyses and stipitate asci attached in a basal arrangement in the centrum; asci with an apical chamber and fluorescing ring; and fusiform, septate ascospores (Huhndorf 1994). Hypsostromataceae was assigned to Melanommatales sensu Barr (Huhndorf 1994). In a subsequent phylogenetic study, Hypsostromataceae was recovered as a strongly supported monophyletic group nested within Pleosporales (Mugambi and Huhndorf 2009b). Lentitheciaceae Yin. Zhang, C.L. Schoch, J. Fourn., Crous & K.D. Hyde 2009 Phylogenetic analysis based on multi-genes indicate that freshwater taxa, e.g. Lentithecium fluviatile, L. arundinaceum, Stagonospora macropycnidia, Wettsteinina lacustris, Keissleriella cladophila, Katumotoa bambusicola and Ophiosphaerella sasicola form a well supported clade, which most likely represent a familial rank (Zhang et al. 2009a). Their morphology, however, varies widely, e.g. ascomata small- to medium-sized, ascospores fusoid to filliform, hyaline to pale yellow, 1- to multi-septate (Zhang et al. 2009a). In particular, they are saprobic on monocotyledons or dicotyledons. Currently, no conspicuous, unique morphological character has been noted in Lentitheciaceae, which makes it difficult to recognize based on morphology. Leptosphaeriaceae M.E. Barr 1987a The Leptosphaeriaceae was introduced by Barr (1987a) based on Leptosphaeria. The familial status of the Leptosphaeriaceae is subsequently supported by molecular phylogenetic studies, in which members of the Leptosphaeriaceae form a paraphyletic clade with moderate bootstrap support (Dong et al. 1998; de Gruyter et al. 2009;Schochetal.2009; Zhang et al. 2009a). Coniothyrium palmarum, the generic type of Coniothyrium nested within this family (de Gruyter et al. 2009). Further molecular phylogenetic study is needed, in which more related taxa are included. Lindgomycetaceae K. Hirayama, Kaz. Tanaka & Shearer 2010 Lindgomycetaceae was introduced as a monotypic family represented by Lindgomyces (Hirayama et al. 2010). Lindgomycetaceae is another freshwater family in Pleosporales, which is characterized by its subglobose to globose, ostiolate and papillate ascomata, numerous, septate, branching and anastomosing pseudoparaphyses, fissitunicate, cylindrical to clavate, 8-spored asci, fusiform to cylindrical, uni- to multiseptate, hyaline to brown ascospores usually covered with an entire sheath and/or bipolar mucilaginous appendages (Hirayama et al. 2010). Lophiostomataceae Sacc. 1883 The Lophiostomataceae had been characterized by its slot-like ostiole on the top of a flattened neck (Holm and Holm 1988). Based on this, 11 genera were assigned under the Lophiostomataceae, viz. Byssolophis, Cilioplea, Entodesmium, Herpotrichia, Lophiella, Lophionema, Lophiostoma, Lophiotrema, Massariosphaeria, Muroia and Quintaria (Holm and Holm 1988). The Lophiostomataceae was thought to be heterogeneous, as the “papilla form is an unstable and highly adaptive character” (Holm and Holm 1988). Most recent phylogenetic analysis support the monophyletic status of the Lophiostomataceae sensu stricto (which tends to comprise a single genus of Lophiostoma) (Zhang et al. 2009a, b). The familial placement of other genera, however, remains unresolved. Massarinaceae Munk 1956 The Massarinaceae was established based on Keissleriella, Massarina, Metasphaeria, Pseudotrichia and Trichometasphaeria (Munk 1956). Subsequently, the Massarinaceae is sometimes treated as a synonym of Lophiostomataceae (Barr
Fungal Diversity 1987b). Based on a multigene phylogenetic study, the generic type of Massarina (M. eburnea) together with M. cisti, Neottiosporina paspali and Byssothecium circinans form a well supported clade (Zhang et al. 2009a, b). It seems that a relatively narrow familial concept should be accepted. Melanommataceae G. Winter 1885 The traditional circumscription of the Melanommataceae was based on its globose or depressed perithecial ascomata, bitunicate and fissitunicate asci, pigmented phragmosporous ascospores as well as the trabeculate pseudoparaphyses (Barr 1990a; Sivanesan 1984). However, the family has recently proved polyphyletic (Liew et al. 2000; Kodsueb et al. 2006a; Kruys et al. 2006; Wang et al. 2007). Bimuria, Ostropella, Trematosphaeria and Xenolophium occur outside Melanommataceae (Mugambi and Huhndorf 2009b; Zhang et al. 2009a). Species of Byssosphaeria, Bertiella, Herpotrichia, Pseudotrichia, Pleomassaria as well as Melanomma resided in the clade of Melanommataceae (Mugambi and Huhndorf 2009b; Schoch et al. 2009; Zhang et al. 2009a). The familial status of many genera previously listed under this family remains to be sorted out (Lumbsch and Huhndorf 2007). Montagnulaceae M.E. Barr 2001 The Montagnulaceae was introduced to accommodate some pleosporalean genera with ascomata immersed under a clypeus, a pseudoparenchymatous peridium with small cells, cylindric or oblong asci with pedicels and brown ascospores (Barr 2001). Three genera were included, i.e. phragmosporous Kalmusia, dictyosporous Montagnula and didymosporous Didymosphaerella (Barr 2001). Our molecular phylogenetic analysis based on multi-genes indicated that species from Kalmusia, Phaeosphaeria, Bimuria, Didymocrea, Paraphaeosphaeria, Karstenula, Letendraea as well as Montagnula resided in the monophylogenetic clade of the Montagnulaceae (Schoch et al. 2009; Zhang et al. 2009a). Morosphaeriaceae Suetrong, Sakay., E.B.G. Jones & C.L. Schoch 2009 Four marine species, viz. Massarina ramunculicola (as Morosphaeria ramunculicola), Massarina velataspora (Morosphaeria velataspora), Helicascus kanaloanus and H. nypae together with the freshwater species Kirschsteiniothelia elaterascus form a well supported clade, which most likely represent a familial rank (Suetrong et al. 2009). Thus, Morosphaeriaceae was introduced to accommodate these taxa (Suetrong et al. 2009). In this study, Asteromassaria pulchra is basal to other species of Morosphaeriaceae, and gets well support (Plate 1). Thus we tentatively assign Asteromassaria under Morosphaeriaceae. Phaeosphaeriaceae M.E. Barr 1979a The Phaeosphaeriaceae was introduced to accommodate some pleosporalean genera which have saprobic, parasitic or hyperparasitic lifestyles and have small- to medium-sized, subglobose or conical ascomata, bitunicate asci and hyaline or pigmented ascospores with or without septation (Barr 1979a). Fourteen genera were included, viz. Comoclathris, Didymella, Eudarluca, Heptameria, Leptosphaeria, Loculohypoxylon, Metameris, Microthelia, Nodulosphaeria, Ophiobolus, Paraphaeosphaeria, Rhopographus, Scirrhodothis and Teichospora (Barr 1979a), which were subsequently assigned to various families, such as Loculohypoxylon and Teichospora to the Teichosporaceae, Paraphaeosphaeria to the Montagnulaceae, Leptosphaeria to the Leptosphaeriaceae, Comoclathris to the Diademaceae, Didymella to the Didymellaceae and Heptameria and Rhopographus to genera incertae sedis of Dothideomycetes (Aveskamp et al. 2010; de Gruyter et al. 2009; Lumbsch and Huhndorf 2007; Zhang et al. 2009a). Based on multi-gene phylogenetic analysis, a relatively narrow familial concept is accepted, which is mostly associated with monocotyledons, with perithecoid, small- to medium-sized ascomata, and septate ascospores which are fusiform to filliform (Zhang et al. 2009a). Four genera were accepted, Ophiosphaerella, Phaeosphaeria, Entodesmium and Setomelanomma (Zhang et al. 2009a). Together with Cucurbitariaceae, Didymellaceae, Didymosphaeriaceae, Dothidotthiaceae, Leptosphaeriaceae and Pleosporaceae, thePhaeosphaeriaceae is assigned under Pleosporineae (Zhang et al. 2009a). Pleomassariaceae M.E. Barr 1979a Both Asteromassaria and Splanchnonema were designated as representative genera of Pleomassariaceae (Barr 1979a). Currently, four genera are included in Pleomassariaceae, viz. ?Lichenopyrenis, ?Splanchnonema, ?Peridiothelia and Pleomassaria (Table 4). The generic type of Pleomassaria (P. siparia) clustered with species of Melanommataceae in previous and present studies (Schoch et al. 2009; Zhang et al. 2009a; Plate 1). Zhang et al. (2009a) has attempted to assign Pleomassariaceae to Melanommataceae (Zhang et al. 2009a). Based on the distinct morphology and anamorphic stage of Pleomassaria siparia as well as the divergence of dendrogram, we hesitantely reinstate Pleomassariaceae as a separate family in this study. Pleosporaceae Nitschke 1869 The Pleosporaceae is one of the earliest introduced families in Dothideomycetes. The Pleosporaceae was originally assigned under Sphaeriales, which accommodated species with paraphyses and immersed perithecia (Ellis and Everhart 1892; Lindau 1897; Winter 1887). Subsequently, many of the Pleosporaceae species were transferred to the Pseudosphaeriaceae, which was subsequently elevated to ordinal rank as Pseudosphaeriales (Theissen
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 105 and 106:
Fungal Diversity
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 and 134:
Fungal Diversity Fig. 69 Ohleriella
Page 135 and 136:
Fungal Diversity Fig. 70 Ophiobolus
Page 137 and 138:
Fungal Diversity Type species Ostro
Page 139 and 140:
Fungal Diversity
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 165 and 166: Fungal Diversity
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 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: Fungal Diversity Table 4 (continued
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?