J.C. FRISVAD &R.A.SAMSONcies is not presented, but will be published in additionalpapers in this volume and elsewhere as thesetwo aspects, cladification and classification, are absolutelynecessary in future monographs.HistorySeveral species <strong>of</strong> <strong>subgenus</strong> <strong>Penicillium</strong> were describedby Dierckx (1901), Thom (1906, 1910), Westling(1911), Biourge (1923) and Zalesky (1927).Despite treatments <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> those species by Thom(1930) and Niethammer (1949), the first effectivesynthesis <strong>of</strong> the species was written by Raper andThom (1949). They placed these species in theirsubsections Asymmetrica-Lanosa, -Funiculosa, -Velutina and -Fasciculata, with one species, P. olsonii,being placed in Biverticillata-Symmetrica. Abe(1956) mostly followed Raper and Thom (1949) anddescribed some new varieties. Fassatiova (1977) alsotreated many <strong>of</strong> the fasciculate species in her emendeddescription <strong>of</strong> the series Expansa. Samson et al.treated most <strong>of</strong> the terverticillate species in threestudies (1976, 1977a & b) and Ramirez (1982) followedtheir mainly micromorphologically based<strong>taxonomy</strong>. Pitt (1973; 1979) reintroduced somephysiological characters, such as growth rates atdifferent temperatures and water activities and gatheredthe terverticillate Penicillia with flask shapedphialides in <strong>subgenus</strong> <strong>Penicillium</strong>. He placed P. gladiolias a synonym <strong>of</strong> Eupenicillium crustaceum and P.sclerotigenum in <strong>subgenus</strong> Furcatum, and included P.fennelliae and P. lanosum in <strong>subgenus</strong> <strong>Penicillium</strong>.This overall concept <strong>of</strong> <strong>subgenus</strong> <strong>Penicillium</strong> is verysimilar to the present day placement <strong>of</strong> species in the<strong>subgenus</strong> (as presented by Frisvad et al., 2000) orsequence based ribosomal DNA phylogeny (Peterson,2000). The series classification <strong>of</strong> Pitt and Cruickshank(1990) based on colony diameters and micromorphologyis, however, very different from that <strong>of</strong>Frisvad et al. (2000).Secondary metabolites (extrolites), <strong>of</strong>ten recognisableas diffusible colours, colony reverse colours andexudate colours, have played a special role in fungal<strong>taxonomy</strong>. Usually colours, especially conidiumcolour, are regarded as part <strong>of</strong> morphology. Thesecolours can be subdivided into melanin and proteinmelanin complexes that give fungal conidia theirphysical strength, hardiness and radiation protectionand other colours (and volatiles) that <strong>of</strong>ten acts asecological signals (Wicklow, 1986). Raper and Thom(1949) mentioned citrinin as a common extrolite inseveral P. citrinum strains, but did not ascribe anytaxonomic value to it. Ciegler et al. (1973) usedextrolites in their subdivision <strong>of</strong> one species, P. viridicatum,but concluded that” production <strong>of</strong> similarmetabolic products does not provide an adequate basisfor recognition <strong>of</strong> a new taxon“, based on the advice<strong>of</strong> K.B. Raper. Frisvad (1981) was the first to suggestthat extrolites could be used directly in <strong>Penicillium</strong><strong>taxonomy</strong> and this was followed up by two studies onmany <strong>of</strong> the species in <strong>subgenus</strong> <strong>Penicillium</strong> (Frisvadand Filtenborg, 1983; 1989, 1990a), where it wasshown that extrolites are <strong>of</strong> particularly high value in ataxonomic sense (Frisvad et al., 1998). Later a series<strong>of</strong> studies with increasingly advanced instrumentationhas confirmed the value <strong>of</strong> both non-volatile andvolatile extrolites in <strong>taxonomy</strong> (Lund and Frisvad,1994; Svendsen and Frisvad, 1994; Larsen and Frisvad,1995 a & b; Smedsgaard and Frisvad, 1996).Extracellular enzyme production was suggested foruse in <strong>Penicillium</strong> <strong>taxonomy</strong> by Frisvad (1981).Pr<strong>of</strong>iles <strong>of</strong> isozymes were introduced by Cruickshankand Pitt (1987a & b) for <strong>subgenus</strong> <strong>Penicillium</strong>, butwere later shown to be difficult to reproduce (Patersonet al., 1989). In some cases, isozyme pr<strong>of</strong>iles supportedsynonymies accepted by Samson et al. (1976)and Frisvad and Filtenborg (1983), e.g. the synonymy<strong>of</strong> P. resticulosum with P. expansum (Cruickshankand Pitt, 1987a), but rejected by Pitt (1979), in othercases for example the claimed synonomy <strong>of</strong> P. aurantiovirenswith P. expansum (Pitt & Cruickshank,1990) proved to be incorrect. In general the isozymepr<strong>of</strong>iles appear to support the species series suggestedin this paper. Isozyme pr<strong>of</strong>iles showed that P. brevicompactumand P. olsonii were closely related (Cruickshank& Pitt, 1987) in agreement with ouremended series Olsonii, still Pitt and Cruickshank(1990) placed P. brevicompactum in series Urticicolaand P. olsonii in series Olsonii. Using a more detailedprotocol than that <strong>of</strong> Cruickshank (1983) and Cruickshankand Wade (1980), Banke et al. (1997) were ableto classify isolates into species in the series Chrysogena.It seems that detailed analyses are needed toachieve resolution at the species level (Rosendahl andBanke, 1998). The latter authors also emphasize thatvariation within a species and statistics need to beconsidered. Filtenborg et al. (1996) suggested thatextracellular enzymes may play an important role inthe specific association <strong>of</strong> fungal species with theirhabitat, so these methods appear to be promising forfuture polyphasic taxonomic investigations.Bridge at al. (1989 a & b) attempted to classify theterverticillate Penicillia by using a phenotypic approach.Their results were difficult to evaluate, becausemany isolates clustered tightly, even thoughthey were actually very different. For example isolates<strong>of</strong> P. expansum and P. aethiopicum clustered eventhough they have no extrolites in common, whiledistinct taxa such as P. coprophilum had isolatesplaced in several different clusters (Frisvad andFiltenborg, 1989).2
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PENICILLIUMTable 1. Number <strong>of</strong> species accepted in different monographic treatments <strong>of</strong> <strong>Penicillium</strong> <strong>subgenus</strong> <strong>Penicillium</strong> (P. arenicola,P. duclauxii, P. echinosporum, P. fagi, P. fennelliae, P. giganteum, P. isariiforme, P. kojigenum, P. lanosum, P. lavendulum,P. namyslowskii, P. oxalicum, P. pallidum, P. paxilli, P. putterillii, and P. skjabinii not included).Authors Number <strong>of</strong> taxa accepted New taxa described (accepted here)Dierckx (1901) 14 10 (4)Westling (1911) 31 (7?) 11 (4)Biourge (1923) 64 23 (0)Zaleski (1927) - 10 (2)Thom (1930) 64 7 (1)Niethammer (1949) 64 0 (0)Raper and Thom (1949) 43 1 (1)Abe (1952) - 6 (0)Samson et al. (1976, 1977 a&b) 22 6 (1)Fassatiova (1977) - 4 (1)Pitt (1979) 23 1 (0)Ramirez (1982) 36 5 (0)Bridge et al. (1989) 28 2 (0)Frisvad & Filtenborg (1989) 38 12 (9)*Pitt & Cruickshank (1990) 23 0 (0)Frisvad et al. (2000) 50 2 (2)Present work 58 6 (6)* The three taxa not accepted here are two new combinations, one new variety was a synonym. Of the remaining nine taxa twowere described as new species and seven have now been raised to species status.Skouboe at al. (1996, 1999; 2000) and Boysen etal. (1996) sequenced the ITS1 and ITS2 region, includingthe 5.8 S region, <strong>of</strong> several terverticillatePenicillia and found rather few sequence differencesamong the species. P. roqueforti, P. carneum and P.paneum were quite different from the remainingspecies (Boysen et al., 1996), while morphologicalydifferent species such as P. solitum and P. echinulatumhas no differences at all in this region (Skouboe etal., 2000).Peterson (2000) also found few differences betweenterverticillate <strong>Penicillium</strong> species in the ribosomalDNA regions. Clearly the ribosomal DNA genehas too few informative differences to reveal thephylogeny <strong>of</strong> these Penicillia. Seifert & Louis-Seize(2000) used a part <strong>of</strong> the β-tubulin (exsons 3-6 <strong>of</strong> BenA) gene to indicate a more resolved phylogeny <strong>of</strong>series Viridicata and related species. More than onegene may be necessary to elucidate the phylogeny <strong>of</strong>the terverticillate Penicillia, but at this point in timethe β-tubulin gene seems to be most promising for aone-gene phylogeny.The number <strong>of</strong> taxa accepted in these differenttaxonomic treatments is listed in Table 1. The number<strong>of</strong> species has had two peaks, one around Biourge(1923) and Thom (1930) and the next in the presentwork. Biourge (1923) was particularly unsuccessful indescribing new species that have been accepted in thisstudy, not one <strong>of</strong> his 23 new species is accepted here.23 <strong>of</strong> the species accepted here have been describedrecently.Materials and MethodsIsolates examined:As many isolates as possible <strong>of</strong> each species wereinvestigated in order to determine the variability <strong>of</strong>each taxon. Cultures ex type were always examined,but occasionally these were not in good conditionafter many years <strong>of</strong> maintenance in culture collections.Therefore typical cultures have been includedfor comparison and verification <strong>of</strong> identity <strong>of</strong> newlyidentified isolates. They are indicated with an Y in thedescription <strong>of</strong> each taxon. Eight isolates <strong>of</strong> each taxonwere examined in depth. These are listed after thedescription <strong>of</strong> each species. Some species are presentlyonly represented by one isolate as yet, includingP. formosanum and P. confertum.Media and incubationThe media were all modified by adding coppersulphateand zink-sulphate to ensure proper development<strong>of</strong> the green pigmentation <strong>of</strong> the conidial colour in<strong>Penicillium</strong> isolates (Smith, 1949; Filtenborg et al.,1990). All fungi were grown on the following media(all percentages are weight/volume):Czapek-Dox (Cz) agar (Raper and Thom, 1949):NaNO 3 0.3 %Sucrose 3.0%K 2 HPO 4·3H 2 O 0.13%MgSO 4·7H 2 O 0.05%KCl 0.05%FeSO 4·7H 2 O 0.001%CuSO 4·5H 2 O. 0.0005%ZnSO 4·7H 2 O 0.001%Agar 1.5%Distilled water, pH 6.3 ± 0.23
- Page 5: POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 9 and 10: POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 11: P. oxalicum has biverticillate stru
- Page 14 and 15: J.C. FRISVAD &R.A.SAMSONproduced by
- Page 19 and 20: dipodomyis are mainly distinguished
- Page 21 and 22: species of the Claviformia by the m
- Page 23 and 24: POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 25 and 26: Ex type cultures of P. granulatum (
- Page 27 and 28: = P. terraconense Ramírez & Martí
- Page 29 and 30: Two names, P. aurantiocandidum and
- Page 31 and 32: (except P. allii and P. albocoremiu
- Page 33 and 34: species on cheese (Lund et al., 199
- Page 35 and 36: POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 37 and 38: POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 39 and 40: List of accepted species in subgenu
- Page 41 and 42: POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 43 and 44: POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 45 and 46: POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 47 and 48: POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 49 and 50: POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 51 and 52: POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 53 and 54:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 55 and 56:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 57 and 58:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 59 and 60:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 61 and 62:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 63 and 64:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 65 and 66:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 67 and 68:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 69 and 70:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 71 and 72:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 73 and 74:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 75 and 76:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 77 and 78:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 79 and 80:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 81 and 82:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 83 and 84:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 85 and 86:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 87 and 88:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 89 and 90:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 91 and 92:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 93 and 94:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 95 and 96:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 97 and 98:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 99 and 100:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 101 and 102:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 103 and 104:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 105 and 106:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 107 and 108:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 109 and 110:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 111 and 112:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 113 and 114:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 115 and 116:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 117 and 118:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 119 and 120:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 121 and 122:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 123 and 124:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 125 and 126:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 127 and 128:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 129 and 130:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 131 and 132:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 133 and 134:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 135 and 136:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 137 and 138:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 139 and 140:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 141 and 142:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 143 and 144:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 145 and 146:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 147 and 148:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 149 and 150:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 151 and 152:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 153 and 154:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 155 and 156:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 157 and 158:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 159 and 160:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 161 and 162:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 163 and 164:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 165 and 166:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 167 and 168:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 169 and 170:
Cruickshank RH (1983) Distinction b
- Page 171 and 172:
POLYPHASIC TAXONOMY OF SUBGENUS PEN
- Page 173 and 174:
Smedsgaard J. (1997b) Terverticilla