Pleosporales - CBS - KNAW

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Fungal Diversity and Sydow 1918). Luttrell (1955) introduced the Pleosporales (lacking a Latin description), which is characterized by its Pleospora-type of centrum development. Based on this, the Pleosporaceae and the Lophiostomataceae as well as other five families were placed in Pleosporales (Luttrell 1955). Pleosporaceae is the largest and most typical family in Pleosporales. Wehmeyer (1975) stated that the Pleosporatype centrum development is verified in a small number of genera, and centrum development in the majority of genera is unknown; thus the placement of families or genera is quite arbitrary. In addition, the circumscription of Pleosporaceae is not clear-cut, and “……ascostromata of many different types, which are previously placed in various other families (Trichosphaeriaceae, Melanommataceae, Cucurbitariaceae, Amphisphaeriaceae etc.) are to be found here” (Wehmeyer 1975). Thus, the heterogeneous nature of Pleosporales is obvious (Eriksson 1981), and had been confirmed by subsequent molecular phylogenetic studies (e.g. Kodsueb et al. 2006a). Based on the multi-gene phylogenetic analysis, some species from Lewia, Cochliobolus, Pleospora, Pyrenophora and Setosphaeria resided in the Pleosporaceae (Zhang et al. 2009a). Sporormiaceae Munk 1957 The Sporormiaceae is the largest coprophilous family in Pleosporales, which bears great morphological variation. Ascomata vary from cleistothecoid to perithecoid, asci are regularly or irregularly arranged, clavate or spherical, ascospores with or without germ slits or ornamentations. Based on phylogenetic analysis, Sporormiaceae is most likely monophyletic as currently circumscribed (Kruys et al. 2006; Kruys and Wedin 2009). ?Teichosporaceae M.E. Barr 2002 The Teichosporaceae was introduced by segregating some non-lichenized members of the Dacampiaceae which are apostrophic on woody stems and periderm or hypersaprotrophic on other ascomycetous fungi (Barr 2002). The Dacampiaceae together with its synonym, Pyrenidiaceae was only maintained to accommodate its lichenicolous genera (Barr 2002). This proposal does not have any molecular phylogenetic support. Tetraplosphaeriaceae Kaz. Tanaka & K. Hirayama 2009 The Tetraplosphaeriaceae was introduced to accommodate five genera, i.e. Tetraplosphaeria, Triplosphaeria, Polyplosphaeria and the anamorphic genera Pseudotetraploa and Quadricrura (Tanaka et al. 2009). The Tetraplosphaeriaceae is characterized by its Massarina-like teleomorphs and its Tetraploa-like anamorphs with setaelike appendages, and its monophylogenetic status has been recently confirmed based on DNA phylogenetic studies (Tanaka et al. 2009). Trematosphaeriaceae Three species, viz. Falciformispora lignatilis, Halomassarina thalassiae and Trematosphaeria pertusa form a robust clade, which forms a sister group with other pleosporalean families (Schoch et al. 2009; Suetrong et al. 2009). Trematosphaeriaceae is waiting to be formally proposed (Suetrong et al. data unpublished). ?Zopfiaceae G. Arnaud ex D. Hawksw. 1992 The Zopfiaceae was introduced by Arnaud (1913), but was invalid due to the lack of a Latin diagnosis (see comments by Eriksson and Hawksworth 1992). The Zopfiaceae was formally introduced by Eriksson and Hawksworth (1992), and is characterized by its cleistothecial ascomata, thick-walled peridium, globose or saccate asci and oneseptate, dark brown ascospores (Cannon and Kirk 2007). Currently, eleven genera are included, but the family is likely polyphyletic (Kruys et al. 2006). Excluded family Phaeotrichaceae Cain 1956 The cleistothecioid ascomata, ascospores with germ pore at each end and the absence of pseudoparaphyses indicate that the Phaeotrichaceae may not be closely related to Pleosporales. This was confirmed by DNA based phylogenies (Schoch et al. 2009). Thus, we exclude it from Pleosporales. Final remarks Problems and concerns Recently, many new pleosporalean lineages from freshwater (Shearer et al. 2009; Zhang et al. 2009a), marine (Suetrong et al. 2009) or from bambusicolous hosts (Tanaka et al. 2009) have been reported. In particular, large-scale phylogenetic analysis indicate that numerous unresolved clades still exist, which may also indicate that a large number of fungal lineages are not resolved. As has been estimated, 95% of all fungi are unreported (Hawksworth 1991), and a large portion of them might exist only as hyphae (or DNA-only fungi, Taylor 1993). Under the influence of human activities, environmental situations are changing quickly, which may result in numerous fungal taxa losing their habitats and/or become endangered. More field work is urgently needed. A future polyphasic approach to study Pleosporales The use of DNA sequence comparisons have proved invaluable in modern concepts of fungal taxonomy. It is now clear many fungi do not produce reproductive structures or
Fungal Diversity only do so under very rare circumstances and many fungi cannot be cultured (Begerow et al. 2010). More and more morpho-species have proven to be cryptic taxa, and already a large percentage of fungal diversity is documented only by DNA sequences. DNA sequence analysis is an essential way to resolve these problems. But are they enough for fully informed fungal taxonomy? Each single morphological character may be the outcome of the expression of one to numerous genes, which might be composed of thousands of base pairs. DNA barcoding methods are “a breakthroughfor identification, but they will not supplant the need to formulate and rigorously test species hypothesis” (Wheeler et al. 2004). Thus, integration of classical morphological approaches and DNA and protein based sequence comparisons are critical to produce a modern taxonomy that reflects evolutionary similarities and differences (DeSalle et al. 2005; Godfray 2002). In particular, the advent of comparative genomics and advances in our understanding of secondary metabolites and host or habitat spectra allow the possibility to tie phylogenetic hypotheses derived from DNA and protein sequence to the biology of the organisms. (Bitzer et al. 2008; Stajich et al. 2009; Zhang et al. 2009a, b). Acknowledgement We are grateful to the Directors and Curators of the following herbaria for loan of specimens in their keeping: BAFC, BISH, BPI, BR, BRIP, CBS, E, ETH, FFE, FH, G, H, Herb. J. Kohlmeyer, HHUF, IFRD, ILLS, IMI, K(M), L, LPS, M, MA, NY, PAD, PC, PH, RO, S, TNS, TRTC, UB, UBC, UPS and ZT; to Dr. L. Cai, Dr. A.J.L. Phillips, Dr. C. Shearer and some other mycologists for their permission to use or refer to their published figures, to J.K. Liu, H. Zhang, Y.L. Yang and J. Fournier for helping me loan or collect specimens, to H. Leung for technical help. The third coauthor acknowledges the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Library of Medicine. The Global Research Network and King Saud University are also thanked for support. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. References Adams GC, Wingfield MJ, Common R, Roux J (2005) Phylogenetic relationships and morphology of Cytospora species from Eucalyptus. Stud Mycol 52:1–146 Aguirre-Hudson B (1991) A taxonomic study of the species referred to the ascomycete genus Leptorhaphis. Bull Br Mus Nat Hist (Bot) 21:85–192 Ahmed SI, Asad F (1968) Sporormia fimicola sp. nov. and Sporormiella inaequalis sp. nov. from West Pakistan. Sydowia 21:290–294 Ahmed SI, Cain RF (1972) Revision of the genera Sporormia and Sporormiella. Can J Bot 50:419–478 Alias SA, Jones EBG, Torres J (1999) Intertidal fungi from the Philippines, with a description of Acrocordiopsis sphaerica sp. nov. (Ascomycota). Fungal Divers 2:35–41 Aptroot A (1995) A monograph of Didymosphaeria. Stud Mycol 37:1–160 Aptroot A (1998) A world revision of Massarina (Ascomycota). Nova Hedw 66:89–162 Arenal F, Platas G, Peláez F (2005) Two new Preussia species defined based on morphological and molecular evidence. Fungal Divers 20:1–15 Arnaud G (1913) Sur les genres Zopfia, Richonia et Caryospora. Bull Soc Mycol Fr 29:253–260 Auerswald B (1866) Delitschia nov. gen. e grege Sphaeriacearum simplicium. Hedwigia 5:49–64 Aveskamp MM, de Gruyter J, Woudenberg JHC, Verkley GJM, Crous PW (2010) Highlights of the Didymellaceae: a polyphasic approach to characterise Phoma and related pleosporalean genera. Stud Mycol 65:1–60 Barr ME (1964) The genus Pseudomassaria in North America. Mycologia 56:841–862 Barr ME (1968) The Venturiaceae of North America. Can J Bot 46:799–864 Barr ME (1972) Preliminary studies on the Dothideales in temperate North America. Contrib Univ Mich Herb 9:523–638 Barr ME (1975) A note on Extrawettsteinina. Mycotaxon 2:104–106 Barr ME (1976) Hypoxylon grandineum: a Loculoascomycete. Mycotaxon 3:325–329 Barr ME (1979a) A classification of Loculoascomycetes. Mycologia 71:935–957 Barr ME (1979b) On the Massariaceae in North America. Mycotaxon 9:17–37 Barr ME (1980) On the family Tubeufiaceae (Pleosporales). Mycotaxon 12:137–167 Barr ME (1981) The genus Curreya: an example of taxonomic confusion in the Ascomycetes. Mycologia 73:599–609 Barr ME (1982a) Leptosphaeria sepalorum. Mycotaxon 15:345– 348 Barr ME (1982b) On the Pleomassariaceae (Pleosporales) in North America. Mycotaxon 15:349–383 Barr ME (1983) Muriform ascospores in class Ascomycetes. Mycotaxon 18:149–157 Barr ME (1984) Herpotrichia and its segregates. Mycotaxon 20:1–38 Barr ME (1985 publ. 1986) On Julella, Delacourea, and Decaisnella, three dictyosporous genera described by J.H. Fabre. Sydowia 38:11–19 Barr ME (1987a) New taxa and combinations in the Loculoascomycetes. Mycotaxon 29:501–505 Barr ME (1987b) Prodromus to Class Loculoascomycetes. Amherst. University of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Barr ME (1989a) Some unitunicate taxa excluded from Didymosphaeria. Stud Mycol 31:23–27 Barr ME (1989b) The genus Dothidotthia (Botryosphaeriaceae) in North America. Mycotaxon 34:517–526 Barr ME (1989c) The genus Chaetomastia (Dacampiaceae) in North America. Mycotaxon 34:507–515 Barr ME (1990a) Melanommatales (Loculoascomycetes). N Amer Fl 13(II):1–129 Barr ME (1990b) Some dictyosporous genera and species of Pleosporales in North America. Mem N Y Bot Gard 62:1–92 Barr ME (1992a) Additions to and notes on the Phaeosphaeriaceae (Pleosporales, Loculoascomycetes). Mycotaxon 43:371–400 Barr ME (1992b) Notes on the Lophiostomataceae (Pleosporales). Mycotaxon 45:191–221 Barr ME (1993a) Notes on the Pleomassariaceae. Mycotaxon 49:129–142 Barr ME (1993b) Redisposition of some taxa described by J.B. Ellis. Mycotaxon 46:45–76 Barr ME (2000) Notes on coprophilous bitunicate Ascomycetes. Mycotaxon 76:105–112
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 and 210: Fungal Diversity Table 4 (continued
Page 211: Fungal Diversity 1987b). Based on a
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?