Skip to main content
Fungal Systematics and Evolution logoLink to Fungal Systematics and Evolution
. 2023 May 25;11:85–93. doi: 10.3114/fuse.2023.11.07

Freshwater ascomycetes from southern Australia: Melanascomaceae fam. nov., Melanascoma panespora gen. et. sp. nov., and Pleurothecium brunius sp. nov.

SC Fryar 1,*, DEA Catcheside 1
PMCID: PMC10964405  PMID: 38532935

Abstract

During a survey of freshwater fungi in temperate southern Australia, two new taxa were found, Melanascoma panespora and Pleurothecium brunius. Morphological and molecular data place Melanascoma panespora in the Diaporthomycetidae representing a new genus. Melanascoma, along with Proliferophorum and Paraproliferophorum, form a new lineage and the family Melanascomaceae is introduced. Phylogenetic analyses using ITS, 28S, and 18S nrRNA gene sequences,, along with morphological examination revealed Pleurothecium brunius to be a new species of Pleurothecium, sister to P. aquaticum.

Citation: Fryar SC, Catcheside DEA (2023). Freshwater ascomycetes from southern Australia: Melanascomaceae fam. nov., Melanascoma panespora gen. et. sp. nov., and Pleurothecium brunius sp. nov. Fungal Systematics and Evolution 11: 85–93. doi: 10.3114/fuse.2023.11.07

Keywords: Attractosporales, Diaporthomycetidae, freshwater fungi, new taxa , Pleurotheciaceae, Pleurotheciales, taxonomy

INTRODUCTION

Freshwater fungi are abundant and diverse in rivers, streams and lakes around the world (Jones et al. 2014). They include saprophytes, plant parasites, animal parsites, endophytes and some form mycorrhizae (Jones et al. 2014). Fungi form a rich tapestry of interactions with other organisms within freshwater ecosystems, playing critical roles such as decomposition of organic matter (Calabon et al. 2020).

A major impediment to full understanding of fungal ecology and conservation is the lack of taxonomic information (May et al. 2019). With only 3–8 % of fungal species described (Hawksworth & Lücking 2017), it is imperative to accurately describe and delimit many more fungi to allow ecologists, conservation, and evolutionary biologists to accurately study them and their interactions. During a survey of freshwater fungi on wood in streams in southern Australia, two distinctive and novel ascomycetes were collected.

The first ascomycete species found during our survey was morphologically similar to many species within the Diaporthomycetidae by having wide, septate paraphyses, unitunicate, cylindrical asci with a distinctive non-amyloid apical apparatus (Maharachchikumbura et al. 2015), but we were unable to assign it any known taxa. Maharachchikumbura et al. (2015) described the subclass Diaporthomycetidae (Sordariomycetes) and outlined the orders and families included in this new subclass. Hyde et al. (2021) further refined the phylogeny of this subclass including 21 orders.

The second species had morphological characters consistent with the genus Pleurothecium but did not fit the description of any of the previously described species. Höhnel (1919) established Pleurothecium for P. recurvatum, a species that is commonly found in freshwater habitats. Réblová et al. (2016) introduced Pleurotheciales and Pleurotheciaceae to accommodate Pleurothecium within the Sordariomycetes. There are currently eight accepted species of Pleurothecium, six of which occur in fresh water (Réblová et al. 2012, Hyde et al. 2017, Luo et al. 2018, 2019, Shi et al. 2021).

In this study, we provide morphological descriptions and phylogenies for these two novel taxa based on multigene analyses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Collection details and examination

Samples of submerged wood less than 5 cm diam were collected in Scott Creek Conservation Park, South Australia from two streams, approximately 50 cm deep with a muddy base, that flow only during winter. Samples were sealed into plastic bags for transport to the laboratory. The riparian vegetation is a mixture of native vegetation and invasive weeds.

Samples were incubated in sterile plastic containers and regularly examined for fungi over 6 months using a Leica MZ7s dissecting microscope. Any fungi observed were photographed, described, and transferred to a microscope slide with a drop of distilled water. A cover slip was added and the slide was examined using a Nikon Eclipse Ni with differential interference contrast. Photographs were taken using either a Sony RX-100 or Canon D6 camera.

Single spore isolation

Potato dextrose agar (PDA, BD micro) was autoclaved, cooled to 60 °C, 100 mg/L streptomycin and 70 mg/L of penicillin added as filter-sterilised stock solutions and 10 mL poured into each 60 mm diam plate.

Ascospores or conidia were transferred to a sterile 1.5 mL microtube with 20 μL of sterile water using a sterile micro needle. The mixture was agitated for several seconds, then transferred to a PDA plate using a pipette. Plates were incubated at room temperature and checked over 5 d for germinating spores using a Leica MZ7s dissecting microscope. Germinated spores were picked off the agar surface using a sterile needle and transferred to individual PDA plates which were incubated at room temperature.

DNA extraction, amplification, and sequencing

Standard method

Approximately 50 mg of fungal mycelium was scraped from the surface of agar cultures with a sterile scalpel and the genomic DNA was isolated using a Qiagen DNeasy Plant Mini kit following the manufacturer’s protocols. The final DNA extracts were eluted into 100 μL of buffer.

Primers LROR/LR5 (Vilgalys & Hester 1990, Rehner & Samuels 1994) were used to amplify the sequences from the 28S nrRNA gene (28S), while ITS1/ITS 4 (White et al. 1990) were used to amplify the internal transcribed spacer regions and the intervening 5.8S nr RNA gene (ITS), and NS1/NS4 (White et al. 1990) were used to amplify the 18S nrRNA gene. Sequences from protein-coding gene, translation elongation factor 1-alpha (TEF1), were amplified with primers were EF1-983F and EF1-2218R (Rehner & Buckley 2005).

Reaction mixtures contained 5 μL buffer, 1 μL (10 mM each) dNTPs, 1 μL (10 μM) of each primer, 0.25 μL hotStart Taq DNA polymerase (New England Biolabs), 1 μL DNA template, and 16.75 μL sterile milliQ water.

PCR amplification was performed in an Applied Biosystems 2720 Thermo Cycler. Cycling conditions for PCR were initial denaturation at 95 °C for 3 min; 35 cycles of denaturation at 95 °C for 1 min, annealing at 52 °C (ITS) or 54 °C (28S) for 50 s, and extension at 72 °C for 1 min; and a final extension at 72 °C for 10 min. Cycling conditions for TEF1 was 95 °C for 1 min; 35 cycles of 95 °C for 30 s, 57 °C for 50 s, and 68 °C for 1 min; followed by 68 °C for 5 min. PCR products were observed on a 1.5 % agarose electrophoresis gel stained with Gel Red (Gene Target Solutions).

The resulting amplicons were purified using a Qiagen QIAquick PCR Purifcation Kit and sequenced in both directions using the respective primers by the Australian Genome Research Facility. Raw sequence reads were assembled, examined, and edited using Sequencher v. 5.3 (Gene Codes Corporation). Newly generated sequences were submitted to NCBI GenBank under the accession numbers listed in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1.

GenBank accession numbers of selected taxa from Diaporthomycetidae used for phylogenetic analyses. Newly generated sequences are shown in bold.

Species Strain ITS 28S TEF1
Acrodictys bambusicola HSAUP myr9510 KU999973 KX033564
Acrodictys elaeidicola HSAUP mj5528 KU999978 KX033569
HSAUP mj5536 KU999977 KX033568
Acrodictys fluminicola KUMCC 15-0240 MK828642 MK849786
Acrodictys globulosa HSAUP myr4696 KU999970 KX033562
Acrodictys liputii HSAUP myr7561 KU999974 KX033565
Acrodictys malabarica HSAUP myr9509 KU999968 KX033560
Acrodictys peruamazonensis HSAUP myr4694 KU999969 KX033561
Acrodictys porosiseptata HSAUP myr4698 KU999967 KX033559
Ascobrunneispora aquatica HKUCC 3708 AF177154 AF132326
Cancellidium cinereum MFLUCC 18-0424 MT370353 MT370363 MT370488
Cancellidium atrobrunneum MFLUCC 20-0100 MT422724 MT422740 MT436438
Fluminicola aquatica MFLUCC 15-0962 MF374357 MF374366 MF370960
Fluminicola saprophytica MFLUCC 15-0976 NR_153493 NG_069504 MF370956
MFLUCC 15-0984 MF374359 MF374368
MFLUCC 18-1244 MW286504 MW287778 MW396649
Fluminicola striata MFLUCC 18-0990 MW286496 MW287770
Fluminicola thailandensis MFLUCC 14-0037 MK828644 MK849789 MN194049
MFLUCC 15-0984 MF374359 NG_069505
Melanascoma panespora AD291710 OQ789909
AD219607 OQ799385 OQ870569
Obliquiminima hyalina MFLUCC 18-1401 MW286507 MW287781 MW396652
Papulosa amerospora AFTOL-ID 748 DQ470950 DQ471069
Paraproliferophorum hyphaenes CPC 40103 ON603770 ON603790 ON605632
Platytrachelon abietis CBS 125235 NG_057957
Proliferophorum thailandicum MFLUCC 17-0293 MK028344 MK028343
Pseudostanjehughesia aquitropica MFLU 17-0857 MF077548 MF077559 MF135655
Pseudostanjehughesia lignicola MFLUCC 15-0352 NR_168808 MK849787 MN194047
Wongia aquatica MFLUCC 18-1607 MK828645 MK849788 MN194048
Wongia fusiformis DLUCC:1767 MZ420746 MZ420761
Wongia griffinii BRIP 60377 KU850472 KU850470 KU850466
Table 2.

GenBank accession numbers of selected taxa from Pleurothecium used for phylogenetic analyses. Newly generated sequences are shown in bold.

Species Strain ITS 28S 18S
Phaeoisaria clematidis MFLUCC 18-1017 MW131990 MW132065 MW132063
Pleurothecium aquaticum GZCC19-0546 MW133897 MW134679
MFLU 21-0148 OM654775 OM654772 OM654807
B-27 MK835854 MK834786
MFLU 17-0922 NR_160597 NG_066197
Pleurothecium brunius AD291640 OQ799373 OQ799347 OQ799346
AD291629 OQ799378 OQ799377 OQ799376
Pleurothecium floriforme MFLU 15-1163 NR_156614 NG_059791
Pleurothecium guttulatum IFRD 9203 NR_176728 MT559115 NG_081395
Pleurothecium obovoideum CBS 209.95 EU041784 EU041841
Pleurothecium pulneyense MFLUCC 16-1293 MF399262 MF399228
Pleurothecium recurvatum GZCC19-0441 MW133898 MW134680
CBS 138686 KT278727 KT278715 KT278702
CBS 138747 KT278728 KT278714 KT278703
Pleurothecium semifecundum CBS 131271 NR_111710 NG_057951 NG_062854
CBS 131482 JQ429158 JQ429239 JQ429253

Direct PCR method

Numerous attempts were made to culture specimens. When cultures were not obtained, conidiophores or ascomata were used for direct PCR. In these cases, Phire Plant Direct PCR Master Mix (Thermo Fisher Scientific) was used. Ascomata or conidiophores were placed into 20 μL of Phire dilution buffer at 4 °C, heated in a dry block to 98 °C for 10 min, then on ice for 5 min, vortexed briefly, then centrifuged for 1 min at 11 000 rcf.

Reaction mixtures for the Phire kit contained 7 μL sterile milliQ water, 10 μL master mix, 1 μL of each primer, 1 μL DMSO, and 1 μL DNA template. PCR cycling conditions for Phire kit extracts was 98 °C for 5 min; 35 cycles 98 °C for 5 s, 60 °C (ITS), 56.8 °C (28S) or 55.5 °C (18S) for 5 s, 72 °C for 20 s; followed by a final extension at 72 °C for 1 min.

For some samples using the Phire kit, a second band was persistent on electrophoresis gels, despite optimisation of PCR conditions. In these cases, the band-stab and re-amplification technique of Bjourson & Cooper (1992) was used. Re-amplification used the standard PCR protocol and primers described above. PCR primers, product clean up and sequencing were as described above for the standard method.

Phylogenetic analyses

The generated sequences for each gene were used in megablast searches (Zhang et al. 2000) to identify closely related sequences in NCBI’s GenBank nucleotide database. Other sequences used in this study were derived from GenBank. Sequences were aligned in Geneious Prime v. 2023.0.4 (https://www.geneious.com) using MUSCLE. Ambiguously aligned regions were removed from the alignments using GBlocks v. 0.91b (Castresana 2000, Talavera & Castresana 2007) on the Phylogeny.fr platform (Dereeper et al. 2008). Alignments were imported into Mega X v. 10.2.6 (Stecher et al. 2020) to find the best substitution models for phylogenetic analyses. The best substitution models were K2+G (ITS) and TN93+G (28S and TEF1) for the first species and K2+G (ITS and 28S), K2 (18S) for the second species. However, RAxML and MrBayes do not use these models, so GTR+G+I was used for all analyses as recommended by Abadi et al. (2019). Genes were then concatenated and maximum-likelihood phylogenetic trees were constructed with partitions for each gene region using RAxML v. 8.2.11 (Stamatakis 2014) within Geneious using the GTR + I + G substitution model and branch support values were calculated with 1 000 rapid bootstrap inferences. The same alignment was analysed using Bayesian analysis with MrBayes using the GTR GAMMA I substitution model (v. 3.2.6; Huelsenbeck & Ronquist 2001) with partitions for each gene region within Geneious. All resulting trees were formatted in Geneious, then further edited in Adobe Illustrator v. 27.0.

RESULTS

Phylogenetic analyses

Phylogenetic trees based on multi-locus analyses (Figs 1, 2) show the relationships between the new species and other related taxa. Branch supports of Maximum Likelihood bootstrap ≥ 70 % and Bayesian PP value ≥ 0.90 are indicated above the branches.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Phylogram generated from maximum likelihood analysis based on combined ITS, 28S and TEF1 sequence data of Melanascoma panespora and closely related taxa. Bootstrap values equal to or great that 70 % and Bayesian posterior probabilities equal to or greater than 0.90 are given above the nodes. Ex-type strains are shown in bold and newly generated sequences shown in blue.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Phylogram generated from maximum likelihood analysis based on combined ITS, 28S and 18S sequence data of Pleurothecium species. Bootstrap values equal to or great than 70 % and Bayesian posterior probabilities equal to or greater than 0.90 are given above the nodes. Ex-type strains are shown in bold and newly generated sequences shown in blue.

Despite numerous attempts, we were unable to recover high-quality sequence data from the ITS region of either of the specimens of the first species. To place this undescribed perithecial species (AD291710 and AD219607) from our survey, the 28S and TEF1 sequences were analysed with ITS, 28S and TEF1 sequences of 30 species in five families in the Sordariomycetes (Fig. 1). The dataset comprised 1 670 characters: 321 bp for ITS, 506 bp for 28S, 843 bp for TEF1. The 18S sequences were mostly uninformative and were not included. The tree is rooted to Cancellidium applanatum, C. cinereum and Obliquiminima hyalina. The undescribed ascomycete nested within the Diaporthomycetidae and formed a well supported clade (100/1) with Proliferophorum thailandicum and Paraproliferophorum hyphaene, which together form a new family (Fig. 1).

For the undescribed Pleurothecium (AD291629 and AD291640) the combined ITS, 18S and 28S sequences were assessed with the eight previously recognised species in Pleurothecium (Fig. 2). The dataset comprised 2 161 characters: 511 bp for ITS, 814 bp for 28S, 836 bp for 18S. The tree is rooted to Phaeoisaria clematidis. The two new specimens form a sister clade to Pleurothecium aquaticum and Pleurothecium guttulatum, representing a new species, Pleurothecium brunius (Fig. 2).

Taxonomy

Melanascomaceae Fryar & D.E.A. Catches, fam. nov. Index Fungorum IF 900400.

Asexual morph: Hyphomycetous. Conidiophores macronematous, mononematous, sub-cylindrical to cylindrical, unbranched or branched, erect, olivaceous brown to dark brown, light brown at the apex, septate, smooth or ornamented. Conidiogenous cells holoblastic, polyblastic, terminal, subhyaline to brown. Conidia fusiform to cylindrical, subhyaline to brown, 0–3-septate when mature, guttulate, smooth.

Sexual morph: Ascomata perithecial, non-stromatic, subglobose with a straight neck. Ascomatal wall textura angularis, dark brown. Paraphyses persistent, cylindrical, septate, unbranched. Asci unitunicate, eight-spored, apex with a non-amyloid apical ring. Ascospores ellipsoid, septate, ornamented, without appendages or sheath.

Type genus: Melanascoma Fryar & D.E.A. Catches

Melanascoma Fryar & D.E.A. Catches, gen. nov., Index Fungorum IF 900396.

Etymology: The prefix “Melan-” means darkly coloured. Melanascoma refers to the darkly coloured ascomata.

Asexual morph: undetermined. Sexual morph: Ascomata perithecial, non-stromatic, immersed, subglobose with a straight neck, dark brown. Ascomatal wall textura angularis, dark brown. Paraphyses persistent, cylindrical, septate, unbranched. Asci unitunicate, pedicellate, eight-spored, apex with a non-amyloid apical ring. Ascospores ellipsoid, hyaline, septate, ornamented, without appendages or sheath.

Type: Melanascoma panespora Fryar & D.E.A. Catches

Melanascoma panespora Fryar & D.E.A. Catches, sp. nov. Fig. 3. Index Fungorum IF 900395.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Melanascoma panespora (holotype AD291710). A. Necks on wood from fresh water. B. Sectioned perithecium in wood. C. Paraphyses. D. Ascus tip. E, F. Asci. G. Peridium. H–L. Ascospores. Scale bars: A = 400 μm; B = 200 μm; C–L = 5 μm.

Typus: Australia, South Australia, Scott Creek Conservation Park (S35°5’45.90”, E138°40’59.16), on submerged decaying wood in an ephemeral stream, 30 Aug. 2020, S.C. Fryar (holotype AD219607; GenBank sequences: 28S - OQ799385; 18S - OQ799375).

Etymology: The specific epithet refers to the appearance of the ascospores, like Vienna bread loaves.

Sexual morph: Perithecia immersed, subglobose, solitary or gregarious, 300–432 × 216–312 μm. Ascomatal wall dark brown, textura angularis (35–50 μm thick). Neck long, cylindrical, black, apex hyaline, (469–)536–771 × (67–)80–87 μm. Paraphyses hyaline, septate, unbranched, constricted at septa up to 4 μm wide, tapering to rounded ends 2 μm wide. Asci cylindrical, uniseriate, inamyloid apical ring, 4–5 μm wide, (1.5–)2 μm high, 8-spored, pedicellate, slowly dissolving in water, (155–) 160–165(–178) × (12–)15–18 μm. Ascospores hyaline, ellipsoid, 1–3-septate, very slightly constricted at the septa, finely verrucose 18–22(–24) × 7–9 μm. Asexual morph undetermined.

Additional material examined: Australia, South Australia, Scott Creek Conservation Park (S35°5’45.90”, E138°40’59.16), 30 Aug. 2020, on submerged decaying wood in an ephemeral stream, S. Fryar (paratype AD219607; GenBank sequences: 28S - OQ789909; 18S - OQ789908; TEF1 - OQ870569).

Notes: Melanascoma panespora forms a clade with Proliferophorum thailandicum and Paraproliferophorum hyphaenes (Fig. 1) both of which form monotypic genera. They are described from asexual morphs, with sexual morphs unknown, therefore morphological comparisons with these genera are not possible at this stage. This clade is sister to Papulosaceae and forms a larger clade with Pseudostanjehughesiaceae and Acrodictyaceae. Further analysis and data will be required to decide which of these clades represents a new order within the Diaporthomycetidae.

Morphologically M. panespora resembles other species within the subclass Diaporthomycetidae in having globose to subglobose brown to black ascomata, wide, septate paraphyses, unitunicate, cylindrical asci with a distinctive non-amyloid apical apparatus (Maharachchikumbura et al. 2015). Rhamphoria is similar to Melanascoma but has dictyosporous ascospores (Réblová et al. 2018). Atractospora is also similar but has fusiform ascospores and lateral necks (Réblová et al. 2016).

Melanascoma panespora shares some characteristics with Rivulicola species (Hyde et al. 1997, Raja et al. 2009, Ranghoo et al. 2000). The asci of M. panespora resemble those of Rivulicola species having uniseriate asci with large inamyloid apical rings and a pedicel. The ascospores of Rivulicola are ellipsoid, hyaline, and septate as in M. panespora but Rivulicola has ascospores with a mucilaginous sheath and without constriction at the septa. In addition, the ascomata and necks of Rivulicola are hyaline to pale brown compared with the dark brown ascomata and necks of Melanascoma. There are currently no available sequences for Rivulicola in GenBank for phylogenetic comparison.

Hyde et al. (2021) noted that, in their analyses, Proliferophorum diverged from Platyrachelon around 76 MYA, which falls within the family range (50–130 MYA). In our analysis the clade including Melanascoma, Proliferophorum and Paraproliferophorum is sister to Platyrachelon, forming a distinct lineage. We therefore introduce the new family Melanascomaceae to accommodate these three genera.

Pleurothecium brunius Fryar & D.E.A. Catches, sp. nov., Index Fungorum IF 900397. Fig. 4.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4.

Pleurothecium brunius (holotype AD291640). A. Conidiophores on wood from fresh water. B–D. Conidiophores and conidiogenous cells. E–J. Conidia. Scale bars: A = 100 μm; all others = 5 μm.

Etymology: The specific epithet refers to the brown colour of the conidia.

Typus: Australia, South Australia, Scott Creek Conservation Park (S35°5’45.90”, E138°40’59.16) on submerged decaying wood in an ephemeral stream, S.C. Fryar (holotype AD291640; GenBank sequences: ITS - OQ799373; 28S - OQ799347; 18S - OQ799346).

Asexual morph: Conidiophores macronematous, mononematous, straight or slightly flexuous, septate, smooth, unbranched, dark brown, paler towards the apex, apex hyaline, (60–)80–100(–115) × 3–3.5 μm. Conidiogenous cells integrated, terminal, polyblastic, denticulate, hyaline, swollen, with 6–8 cylindrical denticles, swollen part 3–7 × 3–5 μm, denticles (2–)2.5–4 μm long, 1 μm wide. Conidia hyaline to dark brown, ellipsoid, 1–3-septate with conspicuous septa, not constricted at the septa, straight to slightly curved, smooth-walled (14–)16–19 × 5–6 μm. Sexual morph undetermined.

Distribution: Found in South Australia, Australia.

Additional material examined: Australia, South Australia, Scott Creek Conservation Park (S35°5’45.90”, E138°40’59.16), on submerged decaying wood in an ephemeral stream, S.C. Fryar (paratype AD291629; GenBank sequences: ITS - OQ799378; 28S - OQ799377; 18S - OQ799376; TEF1 - OQ784578).

Notes: Pleurothecium brunius forms a clade with P. aquaticum and P. guttulatum (Fig. 2). Morphologically it is different to P. aquaticum in having dark brown, shorter conidia, and longer conidiophores. Pleurothecium brunius is different to P. guttulatum by having dark brown, septate conidia, and a bulbous apex.

Acknowledgments

Financial support from the Australian Biological Resources Survey (ABRS) is gratefully acknowledged.

Footnotes

Conflict of interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

  1. Abadi S, Azouri D, Pupko T, et al. (2019). Model selection may not be a mandatory step for phylogeny reconstruction. Nature Communications 10: 934. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bjourson AJ, Cooper JE. (1992). Band-stab PCR: a simple technique for the purification of individual PCR products. Nucleic Acids Research 20: 4675–4675. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Calabon M, Hyde K, Jones E. (2020). www.freshwaterfungi.org, an online platform for the taxonomic classification of freshwater fungi. Asian Journal of Mycology 3: 419–445. [Google Scholar]
  4. Castresana J. (2000). Selection of conserved blocks from multiple alignments for their use in phylogenetic analysis. Molecular Biology and Evolution 17: 540e552. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Crous PW, Boers J, Holdom D, et al. (2022). Fungal Planet description sheets: 1383–1435. Persoonia 48: 261–371. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Dereeper A, Guignon V, Blanc G, et al. (2008). Phylogeny.fr: robust phylogenetic analysis for the non-specialist. Nucleic Acids Research 36: W465eW469. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dong W, Hyde KD, Jeewon R, et al. (2021). Towards a natural classification of annulatascaceae-like taxa II: introducing five new genera and eighteen new species from freshwater. Mycosphere 12: 1–88. [Google Scholar]
  8. Hawksworth DL, Lücking R. (2017). Fungal diversity revisited: 2.2 to 3.8 million species. Microbiology Spectrum 5: FUNK–0052-2016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F. (2001). MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 17: 754–755. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Hyde KD, Bao D-F, Hongsanan S, et al. (2021). Evolution of freshwater Diaporthomycetidae (Sordariomycetes) provides evidence for five new orders and six new families. Fungal Diversity 107: 71–105. [Google Scholar]
  11. Hyde KD, Norphanphoun C, Abreau VP, et al. (2017). Fungal Diversity Notes 603–708: taxonomic and phylogenetic notes on genera and species. Fungal Diversity 87: 1–235. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hyde KD, Read SJ, Jones EBG, et al. (1997). Tropical Australian freshwater fungi. XII Rivulicola incrustata gen. et sp. nov. and notes on Ceratosphaeria lampadophora. Nova Hedwigia 64: 185–196. [Google Scholar]
  13. Jones EBG, Hyde KD, Pang K-L. (2014). Freshwater fungi: and fungal-like organisms: de Gruyter. [Google Scholar]
  14. Luo Z-L, Hyde KD, Bhat DJ, et al. (2018). Morphological and molecular taxonomy of novel species Pleurotheciaceae (Pleurotheciales) from freshwater habitats in Yunnan, China. Mycological Progress 17: 511–530. [Google Scholar]
  15. Luo Z-L, Hyde KD, Liu J-K, et al. (2019). Freshwater Sordariomycetes. Fungal Diversity 99: 451–660. [Google Scholar]
  16. Maharachchikumbura SSN, Hyde KD, Jones EBG, et al. (2015). Towards a natural classification and backbone tree for Sordariomycetes. Fungal Diversity 72: 199–301. [Google Scholar]
  17. May TW, Cooper JA, Dahlberg A, et al. (2019). Recognition of the discipline of conservation mycology. Conservation Biology 33: 733–736. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Phookamsak R, Hyde KD, Jeewon R, et al. (2019). Fungal Diversity Notes 929–1035: taxonomic and phylogenetic contributions on genera and species of fungi. Fungal Diversity 95: 1–273. [Google Scholar]
  19. Raja HA, Ferrer A, Shearer CA. (2009). Freshwater Ascomycetes: A new genus, Ocala scalariformis gen. et sp. nov., and two new species, Ayria nubispora sp. nov., and Rivulicola cygnea sp. nov. Fungal Diversity 34: 79–86. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ranghoo V, Hyde KD, Wong S, et al. (2000). Vertexicola caudatus gen. et sp. nov., and a new species of Rivulicola from submerged wood in freshwater habitats. Mycologia 92: 1019–1026. [Google Scholar]
  21. Réblová M, Seifert KA, Fournier J, et al. (2012). Phylogenetic classification of Pleurothecium and Pleurotheciella gen. nov. and its dactylaria-like anamorph (Sordariomycetes) based on nuclear ribosomal and protein-coding genes. Mycologia 104: 1299–1314. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Réblová M, Seifert KA, Fournier J, et al. (2016). Newly recognised lineages of perithecial ascomycetes: the new orders Conioscyphales and Pleurotheciales. Persoonia 37: 57–81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Réblová M, Fournier J, Stepánek V. (2016). Two new lineages of aquatic ascomycetes: Atractospora gen. nov. and Rubellisphaeria gen. et sp. nov., and a sexual morph of Myrmecridium montsegurinum sp. nov. Mycological Progress 15: 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  24. Réblová M, Štìpánek V. (2018). Introducing the Rhamphoriaceae, fam. nov. (Sordariomycetes), two new genera, and new life histories for taxa with Phaeoisaria- and Idriella-like anamorphs. Mycologia 110: 750–770. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Rehner SA, Buckley E. (2005). A Beauveria phylogeny inferred from nuclear ITS and EF1-α sequences: evidence for cryptic diversification and links to Cordyceps teleomorphs. Mycologia 97: 84–98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Rehner SA, Samuels GJ. (1994). Taxonomy and phylogeny of Gliocladium analysed from nuclear large subunit ribosomal DNA sequences. Mycological Research 98: 625–634. [Google Scholar]
  27. Shi L, Yang H, Hyde KD, et al. (2021). Freshwater Sordariomycetes: new species and new records in Pleurotheciaceae, Pleurotheciales. Phytotaxa 518: 143–166. [Google Scholar]
  28. Stamatakis A. (2014). RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30: 1312–1313. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Stecher S, Tamura K, Kumar S. (2020). Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis (MEGA) for macOS. Molecular Biology and Evolution 37: 1237–1239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Talavera G, Castresana J. (2007). Improvement of phylogenies after removing divergent and ambiguously aligned blocks from protein sequence alignments. Systematic Biology 56: 564e577. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Vilgalys R, Hester M. (1990). Rapid genetic identification and mapping of enzymatically amplified ribosomal DNA from several Cryptococcus species. Journal of Bacteriology 172: 4238–4246. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. von Höhnel F. (1919). Fünfte vorläufige mitteilung mycologische Ergebnisse (Nr. 399–500). Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft 37: 153–161. [Google Scholar]
  33. White TJ, Bruns T, Lee S, et al. (1990). Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In: PCR protocols: a guide to methods and applications (Innis MA, Gelfand DH, Sninsky JJ, et al., eds). Academic Press, San Diego (California): 315–322. [Google Scholar]
  34. Zhang Z, Schwartz S, Wagner L, et al. (2000). A greedy algorithm for aligning DNA sequences. Journal of Computational Biology 7: 203–214. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Fungal Systematics and Evolution are provided here courtesy of Westerdijk Fungal Biodiversity Institute

RESOURCES