Diversity of Rhizophydiales (Chytridiomycota) in Thailand: unveiling the hidden gems of the Kingdom

Abstract

Chytrids, often overshadowed by their other fungal counterparts, take center stage as we unravel the mysteries surrounding new species within Rhizophydiales and explore their unique characteristics. In the broader spectrum of chytrids, their significance lies not only in their roles as decomposers but also as key players in nutrient cycling within aquatic ecosystems as parasites and saprobes. Baited soil and aquatic samples collected from various provinces of Thailand, yielded new species of the Rhizophydiales (Chytridiomycota), some of which expanded previously single species genera. Our investigation incorporated a combination of morphological and phylogenetic approaches, enabling us to identify these isolates as distinct taxa. The novel isolates possess distinguishing features, such as variations in size and shape of the sporangium and zoospores, that somewhat differentiate them from described taxa. To confirm the novelty of the species, we employed robust phylogenetic analyses using maximum likelihood and bayesian methods. The results provided strong support for the presence of eight distinct lineages within the Rhizophydiales, representing our newly discovered species. Furthermore, we employed Poisson Tree Processes to infer putative species boundaries and supplement evidence for the establishment of our new Rhizophydiales species. By meticulously exploring their morphological characteristics and genetic makeup, we expand the known catalogue of fungal diversity by describing Alphamyces thailandicus, Angulomyces ubonensis, Gorgonomyces aquaticus, G. chiangraiensis, G. limnicus, Pateramyces pingflumenensis, Terramyces aquatica, and T. flumenensis and also provide valuable insights into the intricacies of this order. This newfound knowledge not only enriches our understanding of Rhizophydiales but also contributes significantly to the broader field of mycology, addressing a critical gap in the documentation of fungal species. The identification and characterization of these eight novel species mark a noteworthy stride towards a more comprehensive comprehension of fungal ecosystems and their vital role.

Introduction

The kingdom Fungi comprises various distinct lineages namely, Dikarya, zygosporic and zoosporic taxa (Voigt et al. 2021; Wijayawardene et al. 2022). Among all the known fungal groups, zoosporic lineages are least studied (Hurdeal et al. 2020). Of these, the Chytridiomycota, commonly referred to as chytrids, is the most abundant and studied lineage (Letcher et al. 2015; Seto and Degawa 2018a; Longcore and Simmons 2020; Hurdeal et al. 2020; Voigt et al. 2021). Chytrids are predominantly found in aquatic systems. With the emergence of next generation sequencing data, we have evidence that chytrids represent a significant portion of the overall fungal community, however they are also isolated from terrestrial habitats (Panzer et al. 2015; Hassett et al. 2020; Longcore and Simmons 2020; Blaalid and Khomich 2021; Van den Wyngaert et al. 2022). Saprobic chytrids are detected on baits such as pollen grains, onion skin, and chitin among others (Longcore and Simmons 2020). Parasitic chytrids infect hosts ranging from green algae to amphibians in various aquatic niches (Fisher and Garner 2020; Seto et al. 2020a).

Identification of chytrids by light microscopy is often difficult because many species have similar morphology; consequently, species descriptions are primarily based on molecular phylogenetic analyses using the internal transcribed spacer and large subunit ribosomal ribonucleic acid (ITS-LSU) genetic markers (James et al. 2000) and previously ultrastructural details of the zoospores (Letcher et al. 2006). Recently, Hurdeal et al. (2023) proposed a polyphasic approach employing phylogeny, Poisson tree processes, and genetic distance analysis of the ITS to describe novel species (Schoch et al. 2012). This approach was proposed as morphology alone is insufficient to identify new taxa at the species level.

The systematics of Rhizophydiales has been continuously updated over the last few years. Molecular phylogeny and zoospore ultrastructure studies have enabled the elevation of the problematic genus Rhizophydium sensu lato to the order Rhizophydiales, within which Letcher, Powell and others, established new genera and neo-typed historical species (Letcher et al. 2006, 2008, 2012). The historical chytrid literature has numerous morphologically described Rhizophydium species that are currently taxonomically unresolved because attempts to match new isolates to descriptions based on organisms not in axenic culture can be erroneous and therefore is problematic (Hurdeal et al. 2023). Intricacies, such as various species with different lifestyles, and the number of historical species makes this order particularly interesting to study.

Thailand is a tropical country with an immense diversity of flora, fauna, and funga with a significant potential for organismal discovery. In the last decade, descriptions of new fungal species from Thailand have contributed significantly to fungal taxonomy. Though most studies were and are still, primarily focused on dikaryan fungi, attempts to study basal lineages in the country are emerging (Hurdeal et al. 2021a, b, 2022, 2023). To discover and explore zoosporic fungi, we collected and baited soil and water samples from different locations. We implemented a polyphasic approach using phylogeny, Poisson tree processes (PTP) and morphology to classify recovered Rhizophydiales isolates resulting in new species in Alphamyces, Angulomyces, Gorgonomyces, Pateramyces, and Terramyces. The new species and their phylogenetic relationships increase our knowledge of the Rhizophydiales in Thailand and also reveal the relationship of the new species to rhizophydialean species from other parts of the world.

Materials and methods

Sample collection, and isolation

We collected soil and water samples from Chiang Rai, Chiang Mai and Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand. Water samples, along with some sediments, were collected from various lakes and rivers in sterile 50 mL centrifuge tubes. Soil samples were collected from the rhizosphere of shrubs and trees. Surface organic debris was manually removed and a sterile shovel or spoon was used to dig the soil, which was stored in Ziploc bags or centrifuge tubes.

For isolation, all samples were baited with pine pollen. Water samples were poured into 90 mm plastic Petri dishes, and pollen added. 1 g of soil was weighed and transferred to a sterile 90 mm Petri plate. The soil was then flooded with sterilized water and pollen added. All inoculated plates were kept at 20 °C and monitored daily under 100–400X magnification (Nikon Eclipse Ni). Once infected pollen grains were observed, a single sporangium was transferred with a drawn micropipette or a needle to PmTG agar medium supplemented with streptomycin sulfate (350 mg/L) and penicillin G (200 mg/L) (Barr 1986). Morphological characters of the fungi were observed with a Nikon Eclipse Ni compound microscope (100–600X) under DIC and images taken with a Nikon DS-RI2 digital camera. Isolates were preserved in 15% glycerol and following the protocol recommended by Collection of Zoosporic Eufungi at the University of Michigan (CZEUM) for long-term preservation (https://czeum.herb.lsa.umich.edu/). Ex-type living cultures have been deposited in the Mae Fah Luang culture collection (MFLUCC), Chiang Rai, Thailand. Photoplates and species descriptions have been deposited in MycoBank.

DNA extraction, genetic marker amplification, and sequencing

Genomic DNA was extracted from mature cultures using G-spin™ Total DNA Extraction Kit (Intron Biotechnology, South Korea) following the manufacturer’s instructions. Amplicons of partial fragments of ITS1-5.8S-ITS2, and LSU were generated with polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The primers used were ITS4/ITS5 and LROR/LR5 (Vilgalys and Hester 1990; White et al. 1990). PCR conditions were initial denaturation at 94 °C for 5 min, followed by 30 cycles of denaturation at 94 °C of 1 min, annealing at 52 °C for 45 s, elongation at 72 °C for 90 s and final elongation at 72 °C for 7 min.

PCR products were purified with the MEGAquick spin plus fragment DNA purification kit (Intron Biotechnology, South Korea). Sequencing was performed with an Applied Biosystems 3130XL DNA analyzer (Bionics, South Korea).

Phylogenetic analysis and poisson tree processes

Raw DNA sequence data were edited and assembled into contigs using SeqMan Version 7.1.0. The newly generated sequences were used as queries to perform blast searches against the nucleotide database (nr) in GenBank to check for possible contamination and to assist with taxon sampling (Altschul et al. 1990). The dataset for Rhizophydiales followed Hurdeal et al. (2023) and was updated to include newly introduced taxa (see Table 1). Taxon sampling within identified genera where new species are being introduced spanned the genetic diversity currently available. Only ITS and LSU were used as genetic markers, as they are the most broadly available. Although, the small subunit ribosomal RNA (SSU) marker is also quite well represented for chytrids, for this order, the number of SSU sequence data available is low (< 40% of overall taxa used in this dataset). Hence the marker was not included in our analysis. Data for Rhizophydiales taxa were extracted from GenBank and CZEUM. Datasets for each genetic marker were built and aligned using MAFFT on the online webserver (https://mafft.cbrc.jp/alignment/server/) and trimmed with TrimAl Version 1.2 (Katoh and Toh 2008; Capella-Gutiérrez et al. 2012). The two individual datasets were concatenated into a single matrix, which was used for the final phylogenetic analysis.

Table 1.

Data used for phylogenetic analysis of Rhizophydiales in this study, their corresponding GenBank accession numbers, source and habitats. Type (T), epitype (ET), ex-type (EX), and neotype (NT) species are denoted by superscripts to species names. Sequences derived in this study are shown in bold

Species name	Strain	Accession Number		Source	Habitat/substrate
		ITS	LSU
Alphamyces chaetifer	ARG-110	JF809849	JF809854	Entre Ríos, Argentina	Aquatic
Alphamyces chaetifer	MP-047	JF809851	JF809856	Alabama, USA	Aquatic
Alphamyces chaetiferET	ARG-025	NR_119646	NG_060383	Corrientes, Argentina	Stream/pollen
Alphamyces thailandicusT	MFLUCC 23–0069	OR051769	OR051780	Ubon Ratchathani Province, Thailand	Water/sandy sediment/pollen
Angulomyces argentinensisEX	ARG-008	NR_119644	NG_042447	Buenos Aires, Argentina	Stream/pollen
Angulomyces argentinensis	ARG-070	EF585667	EF585627	Capital Federal, Argentina	Aquatic/pollen
Angulomyces solicola	MFLUCC 22–0100	ON899833	ON892504	Chiang Mai Province, Thailand	Soil/pollen
Angulomyces solicolaT	MFLUCC 22–0101	ON899834	ON892505	Chiang Rai Province, Thailand	Soil/pollen
Angulomyces ubonensis	MFLUCC 23–0297	OR051767	OR051778	Ubon Ratchathani Province, Thailand	Muddy river/pollen
Angulomyces ubonensisT	MFLUCC 23–0072	OR051768	OR051779	Ubon Ratchathani Province, Thailand	Muddy river/pollen
Aquamyces chlorogoniiET	ARG-018	EF585643	EF585603	Buenos Aires, Argentina	Semi-permanent roadside pond /pollen
Aquamyces chlorogonii	ARG- 020	EF585644	EF585604	Buenos Aires, Argentina	Aquatic/pollen
Aquamyces chlorogonii	JEL-317	AY997081	DQ273779	Maine, USA	Soil/Haematococcus
Betamyces americaemeridionalis	ARG-063	EF585664	EF585624	Buenos Aires, Argentina	Vegetated roadside pond /pollen
Boothiomyces macroporosum	CBS-122107	MH863177	MH874723	New South Wales, Australia	Soil, pine pollen
Boothiomyces macroporosumET	PL-AUS-021	NR_119591	AY439040	New South Wales, Australia	Soil, pine pollen
Boothiomyces macroporosum	WJD128	MT731002	KC691381	Alabama, USA	Aquatic/pollen
Boothiomyces sp.	JEL055/Barr 089	DQ485611	DQ485547	British Columbia, Canada	Halophytic soil/pollen
Boothiomyces sp.	JEL348	DQ485624	DQ485558	Maine, USA	Aquatic/pollen
Collimyces mutans	KS100	LC274663	LC274662	Chiba, Japan	Aquatic/Microglena coccifera
Coralloidiomyces digitatus	UACCC-PL-163L	NR_119652	NG_042452	Chubut Province, Argentina	Soil/pollen
Dinomyces arenysensis	P236	KJ027546	KJ027545	Arenys de Mar harbour, Mediterranean Sea, Spain	Aquatic (M)/ Alexandrium minutum
Dinomyces arenysensis	P237	KJ027548	KJ027547	Arenys de Mar harbour, Mediterranean Sea, Spain	Aquatic (Marine)/ Alexandrium minutum
Gammamyces ourimbahensis	PL-116	DQ485670	DQ485579	New South Wales, Australia	Soil/pollen
Globomyces pollinis	ARG-069	EF585666	EF585626	Capital Federal, Argentina	Aquatic/pollen
Globomyces pollinisET	ARG-068	NR_119649	NG_042451	Capital Federal, Argentina	Aquatic (lake)/pollen
Globomyces pollinis	Barr-003	DQ485596	DQ485532	Michigan, USA	Aquatic/Pediastrum
Gorgonomyces thailandicus	MFLUCC 22–0098	ON899835	ON892506	Chiang Rai Province, Thailand	Aquatic/pollen
Gorgonomyces thailandicusT	MFLUCC 22–0099	ON899836	ON892507	Chiang Rai Province, Thailand	Aquatic/pollen
Gorgonomyces sp.	ARG-029	EF585650	EF585610	Corrientes, Argentina	Aquatic/pollen
Gorgonomyces sp.	ARG-036	EF585654	EF585614	Corrientes, Argentina	Marsh/pollen
Gorgonomyces sp.	BARR100	DQ485599	DQ485535	Quebec, Canada	Aquatic/Cladophora
Gorgonomyces haynaldiiET	BAFC-ARG-026	NR_119647	NG_042448	Corrientes, Argentina	Aquatic/pollen
Gorgonomyces sp.	Arg-024	EF585645	EF585605	Corrientes, Argentina	Aquatic/pollen
Gorgonomyces sp.	ARG-119	MT730618	MT730618	Argentina	-
Gorgonomyces sp.	ARG-120	MT730619	MT730619	Argentina	-
Gorgonomyces sp.	ARG-125	MT730622	MT730622	Argentina	-
Gorgonomyces sp.	JEL0862	MT730856	MT730856	Maine, USA	Mud Pond, pollen
Gorgonomyces sp.	JEL0887	MT730869	MT730869	Maine, USA	Mud Pond, pollen
Gorgonomyces sp.	JEL0923	MT730896	MT730896	Texas, USA	Aquatic/pollen
Gorgonomyces sp.	JEL0930	MT730897	MT730897	Maine, USA	Aquatic/pollen
Gorgonomyces sp.	JEL0957	MT730914	MT730914	Maine, USA	Aquatic/pollen
Gorgonomyces sp.	JEL0964	MT730919	MT730919	Maine, USA	Aquatic/Chitin
Gorgonomyces sp.	JEL0965	MT730920	MT730920	Maine, USA	Aquatic/Chitin
Gorgonomyces sp.	JEL151	AY997080	DQ273774	Maine, USA	Aquatic/Lyngbya
Gorgonomyces sp.	MP57	MT730942	MT730942	Madison County, Alabama, USA	Aquatic
Gorgonomyces aquaticusT	MFLUCC 23–0296	OR051771	PP051500	Chiang Rai Province, Thailand	Aquatic/pollen
Gorgonomyces sp.	WJD130	-	KC691383	Alabama, USA	Aquatic/bait
Gorgonomyces limnicusT	MFLUCC 23–0066	OR051770	OR051781	Chiang Rai Province, Thailand	Aquatic/pollen
Gorgonomyces limnicus	UM1559	MT730975	MT730975	Michigan, USA	Aquatic/pollen
Gorgonomyces chiangraiensisT	MFLUCC 23–0070	OR051772	OR051782	Chiang Rai Province, Thailand	Aquatic/pollen
Gorgonomyces chiangraiensis	MFLUCC 23–1307	OR051773	OR051783	Chiang Rai Province, Thailand	Aquatic/pollen
Halomyces littoreus	Barr-263	DQ485604	DQ485540	Virginia, USA	Aquatic/Bryopsis plumosa
Kappamyces betamyces	Barr-316	DQ485606	DQ485542	New Brunswick, Canada	Salt marsh/pollen
Kappamyces laurelensis	AFTOL-ID-690	DQ536494	DQ273824	Georgia, USA	Soil/pollen
Kappamyces laurelensis	CBS-122106	MH863176	MH874722	Georgia, USA	Soil/pollen
Kappamyces laurelensisEX	PL098	NR_119595	NG_060251	Georgia, USA	Soil/pollen
Kappamyces sp.	JEL356	DQ485625	DQ485559	California, USA	Soil/pollen
Kappamyces sp.	PL117	EF585670	EF585630	Virginia, USA	Soil/pollen
Kappamyces sp.	PL118	DQ485671	DQ485580	Virginia, USA	Soil/pollen
Operculomyces laminatusT	JEL-223	NR_119590	NG_042440	Maine, USA	Soil/snake skin keratin
Paludomyces mangroveiT	ATCC-26191	NR_138404	NG_059549	Sao Paulo, Brazil	Mangrove swamp sediment/pollen and cattle hair
Paranamyces uniporus	JEL-695	KP723824	KP723818	Maine, USA	Soil/pollen
Paranamyces uniporusT	PL157	DQ485685	DQ485594	Buenos Aires, Argentina	Estuarine mud flat/pollen
Paranamyces uniporus	WJD-158	KP723827	KP723820	Alabama, USA	Soil/pollen
Paranamyces uniporus	WJD-193	KP723828	KP723821	Ohio, USA	Tamarack bog/keratin
Pateramyces corrientinensis	ARG-031	EF585651	EF585611	Capital Federal, Argentina	Aquatic/pollen
Pateramyces corrientinensisEX	ARG-046	NR_111261	NG_042449	Corrientes, Argentina	Aquatic (lake)/pollen
Pateramyces pingflumenensisT	MFLUCC 23–0068	OR051766	OR051777	Chiang Mai Province, Thailand	River water/pollen
Polyrhizophydium stewartiiEX	JEL0888	MT730870	MT730870	Maine, USA	Aquatic/Eriocaulon aquaticum
Polyrhizophydium stewartii	JEL0932	MT730899	MT730899	Maine, USA	Aquatic/ Eriocaulon aquaticum
Protrudomyces sp.	JEL-134	DQ485612	DQ485548	Maine, USA	Aquatic/Achlya
Protrudomyces lateralisEX	ARG-071	NR_119650	NG_060073	Capital Federal, Argentina	Aquatic (lake)/pollen
Protrudomyces lateralis	Barr-004	DQ485597	DQ485533	Ontario, Canada	Aquatic/Ulothrix
Rhizophlyctis rosea	AFTOL-ID-43	AY997078	DQ273787	Georgia, USA	Soil
Rhizophlyctis rosea	PL132	EU379237	EU379194	Windermere, England	Soil
Rhizophydiales sp.	ARG-033	EF585652	EF585612	Capital Federal, Argentina	Aquatic/pollen
Rhizophydium brooksianum	AFTOL-ID-22	-	DQ273770	Maine, USA	Soil/pollen
Rhizophydium brooksianumEX	JEL-136	NR_119550	NG_060069	Maine, USA	Soil/pollen
Rhizophydium echinocystoides	B8	-	MH933969	Michigan, USA	Bog water/
Rhizophydium globosum	CBS-120403	MH863084	MH874643	Maine, USA	-
Rhizophydium globosum	JEL-222	DQ485616	DQ485551	Maine, USA	Soil/pollen
Rhizophydium jobii	OAS2	MN787065	MN759467	Salalah, Oman	Benthic detritus/pine pollen
Rhizophydium jobiiT	OAS6	MN787067	MN759470	Salalah, Oman	Benthic detritus/pine pollen
Rhizophydium koreanumT	CNUFC-17CPW1-1	-	MH298649	Gwangju, South Korea	Pond water/
Rhizophydium koreanum	CNUFC-17CPW1-2	-	MH298650	Gwangju, South Korea	Pond water/
Rhizophydium sp.	ARG-013	EF585638	EF585598	Buenos Aires, Argentina	Aquatic/pollen
Rhizophydium sp.	ARG-014	EF585639	EF585599	Buenos Aires, Argentina	Aquatic/pollen
Rhizophydium sp.	ARG-035	EF585653	EF585613	Capital Federal, Argentina	Marsh/pollen
Rhizophydium sp.	BR1	AY349121	AY439057	-	-
Rhizophydium sp.	JEL292	DQ485620	DQ485554	Maine, USA	Aquatic/pollen
Rhizophydium sp.	JEL316	DQ536497	DQ273835	Maine, USA	Aquatic/pollen
Rhizophydium sp.	LL6	AY349122	AY439059	-	-
Rhizophydium sp.	MP050	-	KC691337	Alabama, USA	Aquatic
Rhizophydium sp.	PL-AUS-Ad014	DQ485647	DQ485570	New South Wales, Australia	-
Rhizophydium sp.	PL149A	DQ485682	DQ485591	Texas, USA	Soil/pollen
Skeletonema parasitoid T	SkChyt5	MH643793	MH643793	Oban, UK	Aquatic/ Skeletonema sp.
Spizellomyces punctatus	ATCC-48900	NR_111189	NG_027618	Papua New Guinea	Soil/pollen
Staurastromyces oculus	STAU-CHY2	KY555735	KY555731	Oberhavel, Germany	Aquatic/ Staurastrum sp.
Staurastromyces oculusT	STAU-CHY3	KY350146	KY350145	Oberhavel, Germany	Aquatic/ Staurastrum sp.
Terramyces aquaticaT	MFLUCC 23–0298	OR051774	OR051784	Chiang Rai Province, Thailand	Lake water/pollen
Terramyces aquatica	ARG-040	EF585656	EF585616	Corrientes, Argentina	Interface/pollen
Terramyces chiangraiensisT	MFLUCC 22–0102	ON899837	ON892508	Chiang Rai Province, Thailand	Forest soil/pollen
Terramyces chiangraiensis	MFLUCC 22–0103	ON899838	ON892509	Chiang Rai Province, Thailand	Forest soil/pollen
Terramyces flumenensisT	MFLUCC 23–0067	OR051776	OR051786	Ubon Ratchathani Province, Thailand	Muddy river water/pollen
Terramyces flumenensis	MFLUCC 23–0071	OR051775	OR051785	Chiang Rai Province, Thailand	Lake water/pollen
Terramyces sp.	PLAUS18	MT730963	AY439051	New South Wales, Australia	Soil/pollen
Terramyces sp.	JEL0393	DQ485627	DQ485561	New Zealand	Soil/pollen
Terramyces sp.	JEL0395	DQ485628	DQ485562	New Zealand	Soil/pollen
Terramyces sphaerotheca	JEL0302	DQ485623	DQ485557	Maine, USA	Soil/pollen
Terramyces subangulosumET	PL-003	NR_119592	AY439041	Virginia, USA	Soil/pollen
Terramyces subangulosum	PL-122	DQ485673	DQ485582	Virginia, USA	Soil/pollen
Uebelmesseromyces harderi	AFTOL-ID-31	AY997077	DQ273775	-	-
Uebelmesseromyces harderi	ATCC-24053	DQ485595	AY349087	British Columbia, Canada	Intertidal soil/pine pollen
Ulkenomyces aestuarii NT	ATCC-26190/Barr-303	DQ485605	DQ485541	Bremerhaven, Germany	Submersed estuary mud/ pine pollen
Ulkenomyces aestuarii	PL-137	DQ485676	DQ485585	Northern Cape, South Africa	Soil/ pollen
Ulkenomyces aestuarii	PL-190	KP723825	KP723819	British Columbia, Canada	Mud sample/keratin
Urceomyces sphaerocarpusET	ARG-048	NR_119648	NG_042450	Corrientes, Argentina	Small lake (marsh)/pollen
Urceomyces sphaerocarpus	ARG-038	EF585655	EF585615	Corrientes, Argentina	Aquatic/pollen

The IQ-TREE was computed on the webserver https://iqtree.cibiv.univie.ac.at/ using the default parameters (Nguyen et al. 2015). Branch support was estimated from 1000 ultrafast bootstrap replicates. The analysis evaluated the best substitution model using Model Finder, which is embedded automatically in the analysis. The best model for Rhizophydiales was GTR + I + Γ for ITS and TIM3 + I + Γ for LSU. Maximum likelihood (ML) phylogeny using RAxML-NG Version 1.0.1 was inferred on the online CIPRES Portal with bootstrap support from 1000 pseudoreplicates (Miller et al. 2010; Kozlov et al. 2019). The combined data ML analysis was performed by partitioning the matrix according to the genetic markers (ITS and LSU) used and the best-suited models for each marker. The nucleotide substitution model for each genetic marker was evaluated using jModelTest2 on XSEDE in the online CIPRES Portal (https://www.phylo.org/portal2) (Miller et al. 2010; Darriba et al. 2012). The best model under the AIC criterion was TPM2uf + I + Γ for ITS and GTR + I + Γ for LSU. Maximum likelihood phylogenetic analysis was performed for each dataset separately and the concatenated matrix. Bayesian inference (BI) analysis was performed using MrBayes Version 3.2.7a (Huelsenbeck and Ronquist 2001). Four simultaneous chains were run for 2 000 000 generations with a sampling frequency of 100. 25% of the trees were discarded as burn-in. Convergence was declared when the standard deviation of split frequencies was less than 0.01. The final concatenated matrix and ML tree was deposited to Figshare (10.6084/m9.figshare.24910779). Newly generated sequences were deposited into GenBank (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/).

To infer species boundaries, the coalescent-based Poisson tree processes (PTP) model was used (Zhang et al. 2013). PTP uses branch lengths (number of substitutions), which was extracted from the phylogenetic tree and added to infer branching events. The model assumes that the number of substitutions between species is significantly higher than within a species (Zhang et al. 2013). The analysis was performed on the online platform https://species.h-its.org/ptp/ and consisted of 100 000 Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) generations, a thinning set to 100 and burn-in at 10%. The dataset comprised two genetic markers, ITS and LSU. Genus level ML (IQ-TREE) phylogenetic trees were computed. All analyses contained an outgroup, but a command to automatically remove distantly related outgroups to improve the delimitation results was implemented. Genetic distances (pairwise nucleotide substitution) were measured using the Kimura 2-parameter substitution model as implemented in MEGA-X with gamma distribution and pairwise deletion options. For the calculation, the trimmed alignments of ITS were used.

Results

We found chytrids on all of our pollen-baited samples. The overall morphology of the isolates was reminiscent to the members of the Rhizophydiales but we noticed slight differences in the culture morphology. Chytrids from the gross cultures grew readily on PmTG and mPmTG agar plates resulting in 11 isolates, which represent eight new species from both terrestrial and aquatic habitats (Table 1). We constructed a Rhizophydiales phylogenetic tree (Fig. 1), with sequence data of 123 taxa from GenBank. In the final trimmed alignment, ITS comprised 713 and LSU 932 sites and the likelihood of the best scoring tree of the ML analysis was -31204.907.

Fig. 1.

Maximum likelihood phylogram (IQ-tree) inferred from 123 taxa and 1645 characters based on a combined matrix consisting of ITS and LSU. Bootstrap support (RAxML/ IQ) (≥ 70%) and Bayesian posterior probabilities (≥ 0.70) are indicated above the branches or near the nodes in this order. Round nodes indicate maximum statistical support (100/100/1). The tree is artificially rooted using Rhizophlyctis rosea (AFTOL-ID-43), R. rosea (PL132), and Spizellomyces punctatus (ATCC-48900). The new species are in bold. (-) represent bootstrap support lower than 70% or for PP lower than 0.80. (*) indicates unrecovered branching

The topology of the phylogenetic trees from the RAxML, Bayesian, and IQ-TREE analyses was congruent. The placement of the novel taxa remained unchanged in both single and concatenated matrix phylogenetic analyses. In all phylogenetic trees, the new strains formed clades distinct from the reference specimens. The position of nearly all new taxa was stable with high or maximum bootstrap support and posterior probability.

The Angulomyces isolates grouped together but consistently separated from the two known species: A. argentinensis and A. solicola (Fig. 1). Phylogenetic analyses also confirmed the placement of MFLUCC 23–0298, MFLUCC 23–0067 and MFLUCC 23–0071 within Terramyces and MFLUCC 23–0296, MFLUCC 23–0066 and MFLUCC 23–0070 within Gorgonomyces. The isolate MFLUCC 23–0066 groups with the unclassified sequence of UM1559, and MFLUCC 23–0296 clusters with JEL0923, MP57, JEL0930 and WJD130. Our new Terramyces isolate MFLUCC 23–0298 groups with ARG040. Prior to this study, Alphamyces and Pateramyces, each contained only one species. Our phylogenies placed the new isolates in these genera, but clearly segregated them from the type sequences.

The PTP analysis results (Fig. 2) agreed with those of the inferred phylogeny concerning the novelty of the strains and species delimitation. Specifically, the PTP analysis indicated three distinct species within Angulomyces, eleven species in Gorgonomyces and six species in Terramyces. The genetic distances of the trimmed dataset of the new taxa and sister taxa were measured (Tables 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6). Angulomyces was represented by three clades and the genetic distance between them was 2–7% (Table 3). Gorgonomyces isolates grouped into eleven clades with genetic distance between clades ranging from 1.5 to 10.5% (Table 5). Following the phylogenetic species concept, Terramyces was split into four clades each representing a species; the average genetic distance between species was 1.1–9.2% (Table 6). In both Alphamyces and Pateramyces, PTP results indicate two clades with a interspecies genetic distances of 20% (Fig. 2; Tables 2 and 4).

Fig. 2.

Results obtained from PTP analyses Alphamyces, Angulomyces, Gorgonomyces, Pateramyces, and Terramyces. The analysis was based on the ML topologies inferred using ITS-LSU sequence data. Species clusters are indicated with red-colored branches. Numbers near the nodes are posterior probabilities

Table 2.

Genetic distance (%) between Alphamyces strains (grouped according to PTP results) in the ITS genetic marker (603 bp)

	Alphamyces chaetiferum
Alphamyces thailandicus	20

Table 3.

Genetic distance (%) between Angulomyces strains (grouped according to PTP results) in the ITS genetic marker (662 bp)

	Angulomyces argentinensis	Angulomyces solicola
Angulomyces argentinensis	0
Angulomyces solicola	2	0
Angulomyces ubonensis	7	6.5

Table 4.

Genetic distance (%) between Pateramyces strains (grouped according to PTP results) in the ITS genetic marker (647 bp)

	Pateramyces corrientinensis
Pateramyces pingflumenensis	20

Table 5.

Genetic distance (%) between Gorgonomyces strains (grouped according to PTP results) in the ITS genetic marker (472 bp)

	Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	Group 5	Group 6	Group 7	Group 8	Group 9	Group 10
Group 1
Group 2	0.8
Group 3	4.8	5.5
Group 4	4.1	5.2	6.4
Group 5	5.5	5.0	5.9	5.5
Group 6	5.4	5.0	5.9	5.5	0.9
Group 7	5.4	5.6	6.1	5.4	1.8	1.5
Group 8	5.5	6.6	6.2	6.3	6.3	6.8	6.3
Group 9	5.6	6.6	6.3	6.4	5.3	6.1	6.3
Group 10	5.2	6.3	4.9	6.0	5.7	6.3	5.2	2.0	2.0
Group 11	9.9	10.8	9.8	10.1	8.9	9.2	8.6	8.9	9.0	8.9

Table 6.

Genetic distance (%) between Terramyces strains (grouped according to PTP results) in the ITS genetic marker (568 bp)

	Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	Group 5
Group 1
Group 2	4.7
Group 3	5.2	1.3
Group 4	5.3	1.1	2.4
Group 5	7.7	5.9	7.0	7.4
Group 6	9.2	7.6	9.0	8.1	4.4

Taxonomy

Alphamyces Letcher et al., Mycol. Res. 112 (7): 772 (2008)

MycoBank no.: MB 511785

Generic description: Sporangium spherical with a single discharge pore, the upper two thirds of the sporangial wall covered with long slender branched or unbranched hairs, sometimes slightly angular near the discharge papillae. Rhizoids branched. Zoospore contains a single, rather small lipid globule partially covered with a fenestrated cisterna. Mitochondrion single, a portion of which lies above and proximal to the kinetosome. Moderately electron-dense walled vesicles occur in the cytoplasm adjacent to the kinetosome. Based on Letcher et al. (2008).

Type: Alphamyces chaetiferum (Sparrow) Letcher 2008.

Distribution: Argentina, Thailand, and USA.

Alphmyces thailandicus V.G Hurdeal & E. Gentekaki, sp. nov.

MycoBank: MB 848670

Etymology: Epithet references the country from where the species was isolated.

Diagnosis: Alphamyces thailandicus is characterized by significantly larger sporangia (27–59.5 µm diam.) than A. chaetiferum (15–22 µm diam.). 

Type: Thailand: Ubon Ratchathani Province: Trakan Phuet Phon District, 15°32′48.0"N, 104°58′36.0"E, from water/sandy sediment samples baited with pollen, May 2022, B. Raghoonundon [isol. V.G. Hurdeal] (Fig. 3 in this paper – Holotype; MFLUCC 23–0069 – ex-type living culture).

Fig. 3.

Alphamyces thailandicus (holotype) A, B zoospores; C, D developing germling; E–H J developing sporangium with one rhizoidal axis (arrow); I release of zoospores from sporangium; J sporangium with hair-like extensions (arrow). Bars: A, B = 5 µm; C–J = 10 µm

Description: Light microscopy, on PmTG medium: thallus monocentric, eucarpic, epibiotic, sporangia spherical, 27–59.5 µm ($\overline{\text{X}}$ = 37 µm, n = 34), 1 short discharge papilla at maturity, with one rhizoidal axis. Immature thalli have single long branched rhizoids that gradually taper and become moderately (sometimes extensively) branched. Zoospores oval to spherical, 3–4 µm diam. ($\overline{\text{X}}$ = 3.5 µm, n = 35). Resting spores not observed. Generation time on PmTG at 20 °C 2–3 days.

Notes: Phylogeny indicates clear distinction of the new isolate from A. chaetiferum with high statistical support obtained from maximum likelihood (IQ-TREE, RAxML) and Bayesian inference. The genetic distance between the types of A. chaetiferum and A. thailandicus in the trimmed ITS region is 20%.

Distribution: Thailand.

Angulomyces Letcher, Mycol. Res. 112(7): 776 (2008).

MycoBank: MB 511779.

Generic description and notes: See Hurdeal et al. (2023) and Letcher et al. (2008).

Type species: Angulomyces argentinensis Letcher et al. 2008.

Distribution: Argentina, Malaysia, Thailand, and USA.

Angulomyces ubonensis V.G. Hurdeal & E. Gentekaki sp. nov.

MycoBank: MB 848669

Etymology: Epithet refers to the province from where the species was isolated.

Diagnosis: Angulomyces ubonensis differs both morphologically and phylogenetically from A. argentinensis and A. solicola. The newly described species produces smaller sporangia (to 29 µm vs 35 and 41 µm for A. argentinensis and A. solicola, respectively), with usually only one discharge papilla (numerous in A. argentinensis and to two in A. solicola). Zoospores vary slightly whereby they are smaller (2.5–4.5 µm diam.) than A. solicola (3–4 µm diam.) but larger than the average of A. argentinensis (5.5 µm diam.).

Type: Thailand: Ubon Ratchathani Province: Khueang Nai District, 15°17′27.0″N, 104°38′42.0″E, from muddy river samples baited with pollen, May 2022, B. Raghoonundon [isol. by V.G. Hurdeal] (Fig. 4 in this paper – Holotype; MFLUCC 23–0072 – ex-type living culture).

Fig. 4.

Angulomyces ubonensis (holotype) A, B zoospores; C-F developing germling; F–H developing sporangium with one rhizoidal axis (arrowed); L mature sporangia. Bar: A–I = 10 µm

Description: Light microscopy, on PmTG media: thallus monocentric, eucarpic, epibiotic, sporangia spherical, angular, 16–29 µm ($\overline{\text{X}}$ = 23.5 µm, n = 60), 1–2 short discharge papillae at maturity, but most frequently no discharge papillae are observed in this medium, usually with one rhizoidal axis (occasionally two), gradually tapering with branched rhizoids, often the single axis branches into 2 main sub branches and tapers into finer rhizoids. Rhizoids moderate to profusely branched. Zoospores oval to spherical, 2.5–4.5 µm diam. ($\overline{\text{X}}$ = 3 µm, n = 35), flagellum 7.5–15 µm ($\overline{\text{X}}$ = 11.5 µm, n = 30). Resting spores not observed. Generation time on mPmTG at 20 °C 2–3 days.

Notes: Phylogenetic analyses indicate three distinct species with maximum bootstrap support, and PTP specification. The pairwise nucleotide differences in the trimmed ITS (634 bp) of A. ubonensis to A. argentinensis and A. solicola are 7% and 6.5% respectively.

Other material examined: Thailand: Ubon Ratchathani Province: Khueang Nai District, 15°17′27.0"N, 104°38′42.0"E, from muddy river samples baited with pollen, May 2022, B. Raghoonundon [isol. by V.G. Hurdeal] (MFLUCC 23–0297).

Distribution: Thailand.

Gorgonomyces Letcher, Mycol. Res. 112 (7): 767 (2008)

MycoBank: MB 511769.

Generic description and notes: See Hurdeal et al. (2023) and Letcher et al. (2008).

Type species: Gorgonomyces haynaldii (Schaarschm.) Letcher 2008.

Distribution: Argentina, Canada, South Korea, Thailand, and USA.

Gorgonomyces aquaticus V.G. Hurdeal, & E. Gentekaki sp. nov.

MycoBank: MB 848671

Etymology: Epithet refers to the aquatic environment from where the species was isolated.

Diagnosis: Distinct from G. haynaldii (ARG 026 – epitype) by having smaller zoosporangial diameter (to 50 µm in G. haynaldii), fewer, shorter, and smaller discharge papillae (10–19 µm). Compared to Gorgonomyces thailandicus, G. aquaticus can produce longer discharge tubes and larger zoospores.

Type: Thailand: Chiang Rai Province: Mai Sai District, from water baited with pine pollen, Jan. 2022, V.G. Hurdeal (Fig. 5 in this paper – Holotype; MFLUCC 23–0296 – ex-type living culture).

Fig. 5 .

Gorgonomyces aquaticus (holotype) A zoospores; B, C developing germling; D–H developing sporangium with one or two rhizoidal axes; E developing sporangium with two rhizoidal axes (arrow); G sporangium with discharge papillae (arrow); H mature sporangium. Bar: A–H = 10 µm

Description: Light microscopy, on PmTG medium: Thallus monocentric, eucarpic, epibiotic. Sporangia spherical, ovoid, clavate, 10–19 µm ($\overline{\text{X}}$ = 13.5 µm, n = 30) possessing 1 or more, long and moderate, undulate discharge papillae 3–8 × 3.5–8.5 µm ($\overline{\text{X}}$ = 5.5 µm long, n = 20) at maturity. Zoospore cyst produces mostly one to two rhizoidal axes. Rhizoids arise from cylindrical knob-like extension of the sporangium base. Zoospores oval to spherical, 3–4 µm diam ($\overline{\text{X}}$ = 3.5 µm, n = 20), posteriorly flagellated 10–14.5 µm ($\overline{\text{X}}$ = 11.5 µm, n = 20). Generation time on PmTG at 20 °C 1–2 days.

Notes: Phylogenetic analyses and genetic distances show that G. aquaticus clusters with another unclassified strain of Gorgonomyces, hence providing more resolution to the delineation of the new species and insights on the distribution of this species. The genetic distance of this new species to other described taxa ranges from 4.8–5.5%.

Distribution: Thailand, and USA.

Gorgonomyces limnicus V.G. Hurdeal, & E. Gentekaki sp. nov.

MycoBank: MB 848672

Etymology: Epithet references the source (Greek λίμνη = lake) from where the species was isolated.

Diagnosis: Gorgonomyces limnicus is characterized by having smaller zoosporangia than G. haynaldii (ARG 026 – epitype) (to 50 µm in G. haynaldii), significantly fewer, shorter, and smaller discharge papillae but larger zoospores. This species differs from other Gorgonomyces strains introduced in this study and G. thailandicus, by having a different generation time, and larger sporangia.

Type: Thailand: Chiang Rai Province: Mai Sai District, from water baited with pine pollen, Jan. 2022, V.G. Hurdeal (Fig. 6 in this paper – Holotype; MFLUCC 23–0066 – ex-type living culture).

Fig. 6 .

Gorgonomyces limnicus (holotype) A, B zoospores; C–G developing germling; H–K sporangium with knob-like rhizoidal axis (arrow); H sporangium with discharge papillae (arrow); I–K mature sporangium. Bars: A, B = 10 µm, C–K = 10 µm

Description: Light microscopy, on PmTG medium: Thallus monocentric, eucarpic, epibiotic. Sporangia globose, 17–49 µm ($\overline{\text{X}}$ = 44.5 µm, n = 30) and possessing 1–4 short discharge papillae at maturity. The zoospore cyst produces mostly one to three rhizoidal axes. Rhizoids arise from cylindrical knob-like or slightly tubular extension of the sporangium base, extensively branched. Zoospores oval to spherical, 3.5–4.5 × 3.4–5 µm diam. ($\overline{\text{X}}$ = 4 µm, n = 20), posterior flagellum, 11–14.5 µm ($\overline{\text{X}}$ = 18 µm, n = 20). Generation time on mPmTG at 20 °C 3 days.

Notes: Phylogenetic analyses and genetic distances show that Gorgonomyces aquaticus is a new species. The distinct clading of the species to the other members is representative of a new species with a significant percentage pairwise difference in the ITS. The genetic distance of this new species to other described taxa ranges from 4.9–5.7%.

Distribution: Thailand, and USA

Gorgonomyces chiangraiensis V.G. Hurdeal, & E. Gentekaki sp. nov.

MycoBank: MB 848674

Etymology: Epithet references the province from where the species was isolated.

Diagnosis: Gorgonomyces chiangraiensis has smaller sporangia and discharge papillae than G. haynaldii (ARG 026 – epitype) (to 50 µm in G. haynaldii). Gorgonomyces chiangraiensis produces more discharge papillae than G. thailandicus (to 4 in G. thailandicus), G. limnicus and G. aquaticus. This new species differs from other Gorgonomyces strains introduced in this study by having a different generation time, and larger sporangia.

Type: Thailand: Chiang Rai Province: Mae Chan District, from water baited with pine pollen, Jan. 2022, V.G. Hurdeal (Fig. 7 in this paper – Holotype; MFLUCC 23–0070 – ex-type living culture).

Fig. 7.

Gorgonomyces chiangraiensis (holotype) A, B zoospores; C–I developing germling; F rhizoidal axis (arrow); I germlings with extensive rhizoidal branching; J–N sporangia; K–M sporangia with discharge papillae. Bar: A–K = 10 µm

Description: Light microscopy, on PmTG medium: Thallus monocentric, eucarpic, epibiotic. Sporangia spherical, 23–44.5 µm ($\overline{\text{X}}$ = 28 µm, n = 30) and possessing several short discharge papillae at maturity. Zoospore cysts produce mostly-one to two rhizoidal axes. Rhizoids arise from cylindrical knob-like extension of the sporangium base. Zoospores oval to spherical, 2–3 µm diam. ($\overline{\text{X}}$ = 2.5 µm, n = 20), posterior flagellum 8–15 µm ($\overline{\text{X}}$ = 13 µm, n = 20). Generation time on mPmTG at 20 °C 2 days.

Notes: Phylogenetic analyses and genetic distances also indicate the novelty of G. chiangraiensis. The genetic distance of this new species to other described taxa ranges from 4.8–6.4%.

Other material examined: Thailand: Chiang Rai Province: Mae Chan District, from lake water baited with pollen, Jan. 2022, V.G. Hurdeal (MFLUCC 23–1307).

Distribution: Thailand.

Pateramyces Letcher, Mycol. Res. 112 (7): 779 (2008)

Generic description: Sporangium spherical with one discharge pore. Zoospores with one lipid globule partially covered with a fenestrated cisterna. Mitochondrion single. Based on Letcher et al. (2008).

Type species: Pateramyces corrientinensis Letcher 2008.

Notes: Pateramyces was introduced to accommodate three chytrids isolated from a water sample collected from a small lake in Argentina, and baited with pollen. Letcher et al. (2008), based the new genus on morpho-phylogenetic analyses. In the inferred ITS-LSU phylogenetic analysis, the taxon clustered sister to Rhizophydiaceae, leading to the introduction of a new family and genus. Morphological characterization indicated that Pateramyces corrientinensis isolates produced spherical sporangia at maturity, each with an operculate discharge tube. Pateramyces pingflumenensis possesses similar morphological characteristics. Genetic distance analyses (Table 4) in ITS further validated the introduction of the new species.

Pateramyces pingflumenensis V.G. Hurdeal, & E. Gentekaki sp. nov.

MycoBank: MB 848668

Etymology: The species epithet refers to the Ping River (Latin flumen = river), from which the strain was isolated.

Diagnosis: Pateramyces pingflumenensis produces smaller sporangia (15 µm) than P. corrientinensis (to 30 µm) and slightly larger zoospores (5 µm vs 4 µm).

Type: Thailand: Chiang Mai Province: Mueang District, Ping River, 20° 1′ 14.2464″N, 99° 52′ 11.0742″E, from water samples baited with pollen, March 2022, V.G. Hurdeal (Fig. 8 in this paper – Holotype; MFLUCC 23–0068 – ex-type living culture).

Fig. 8.

Pateramyces pingflumenensis (holotype) A zoospores; B–G developing germling; H–L developing sporangium with one rhizoidal axis; L mature sporangium. Bars: A = 10 µm, B–K = 10 µm

Description: Light microscopy on PmTG medium: thallus monocentric, eucarpic, epibiotic; sporangia spherical at maturity, 12.5–18 µm ($\overline{\text{X}}$ = 15 µm, n = 30). Operculate sporangia were not observed. One rhizoidal axis with gradually tapering and branched rhizoids. Rhizoids moderate, sometimes profusely branched. Zoospores oval to spherical, frequently distorted in shape, 3.5–5 µm diam. ($\overline{\text{X}}$ = 4.5 µm, n = 30), flagellum 20–26 µm ($\overline{\text{X}}$ = 24.5 µm, n = 30). Resting spores not observed. Generation time on mPmTG at 20 °C 2 days.

Notes: The phylogeny indicates a clear distinction from P. corrientinensis with maximum statistical support obtained from maximum likelihood (IQ-TREE, RAxML) and Bayesian inference. The genetic distance between the type of P. corrientinensis and P. pingflumenensis in the trimmed ITS region is 20%.

Distribution: Thailand.

Terramyces Letcher Mycol. Res. 110 (8): 911 (2006).

MycoBank: MB 29046.

Generic description and notes: See Hurdeal et al. (2023) and Letcher et al. (2008).

Type species: Terramyces subangulosum (A. Braun) Letcher 2006.

Distribution: Australia, Brazil, England, New Zealand, Thailand, and USA.

Terramyces flumenensis V.G. Hurdeal, & E. Gentekaki sp. nov.

MycoBank: MB 848675

Etymology: Epithet refers to the environment from which the species was isolated.

Diagnosis: Terramyces flumenensis has notably larger sporangia than any other currently described Terramyces species.

Type: Thailand: Ubon Ratchathani Province: Khueang Nai District, 15°17′27.0″N, 104°38′42.0″E, from muddy river water baited with pollen, May 2022, B. Raghoonundon [isol. by V.G. Hurdeal] (Fig. 9 in this paper – Holotype; MFLUCC 23–0067 – ex-type living culture).

Fig. 9.

Terramyces flumenensis (holotype) A zoospores; B-F developing germling; G-N developing sporangium with one rhizoidal axis; M sporangium with hair-like structures; N mature sporangium. Bars: A = 5 µm; B–N = 10 µm

Description: Light microscopy, on PmTG medium: thallus monocentric, eucarpic, epibiotic, sporangia spherical, angular, sometimes irregular in shape, 24.5–80 µm ($\overline{\text{X}}$ = 58 µm, n = 30) with fine hair-like structures on the surface. 1–2 short discharge papillae, but frequently no discharge papillae are observed on this medium, usually with one knob-like to tubular rhizoidal axis (occasionally two). Rhizoids moderately to profusely branched. Zoospores oval to spherical, 4–4.5 µm diam. ($\overline{\text{X}}$ = 4.5 µm, n = 20). Resting spores not observed. Generation time on mPmTG at 20 °C 3 days.

Notes: Genetic analysis shows that this new species is clearly different from the type species in the genus. The genetic difference between this new species and others in the same genus is between 4.4% and 9.2%. PTP analysis confirms that this is indeed a new and distinct species.

Other material examined: Thailand: Chiang Rai Province: Mae Chan District, lake water, Jan. 2022, V.G. Hurdeal (MFLUCC 23–0071).

Distribution: Thailand.

Terramyces aquaticaV.G. Hurdeal, & E. Gentekaki sp. nov.

MycoBank: MB 848676

Etymology: Epithet refers to the environment from where the species was isolated.

Diagnosis: This newly identified species differs from T. subangulosum (specifically the ARG-033 – epitype) by having larger sporangia (to 67 µm diam.), however, it has smaller sporangia and zoospores compared to T. flumenensis.

Type: Thailand: Chiang Rai Province: Mae Chan District, from lake water baited with pollen, May 2022, V.G. Hurdeal (Fig. 10 in this paper – Holotype; MFLUCC 23–0298 –ex-type living culture).

Fig. 10.

Terramyces aquatica (holotype) A zoospore; B–D developing germling; E, F, H developing sporangium with one rhizoidal axis (arrow); G developing sporangium with two rhizoidal axes (arrow); I mature sporangium; J–K sporangium with one discharge tube (arrow). Bars: A–D = 5 µm; E–l = 10 µm

Description: Light microscopy, on PmTG media: Thallus monocentric, eucarpic, epibiotic. Sporangia spherical becoming slightly angular at maturity. Sporangia 26.5–67 µm ($\overline{\text{X}}$ = 45.5 µm, n = 30). Thallus comprises one rhizoidal axis with extensive, branched rhizoids. Zoospores 4–4.5 µm diam. ($\overline{\text{X}}$ = 4.5 µm, n = 20). Generation time on mPmTG at 20 °C is 3–4 days.

Notes: Genetic analyses reveal that this new species forms a separate branch distinct from the type species and other described species in the genus. The genetic distance in the trimmed ITS between the novel species and others in the same genus ranges from 4.4% to 7.7%. Additionally, PTP analysis confirms the uniqueness of this newly discovered species.

Distribution: Thailand, and USA.

Discussion

Chytrid taxonomy has experienced significant changes over the years. Early taxonomy was based on the morphological species concept (e.g., Sparrow 1943, 1960; Karling 1977). In the 1980s, the features used for the identification of chytrids changed drastically with the implementation of zoospore ultrastructure based on transmission electron microscopy (Barr 1980). Currently, the gold standard for the establishment of new taxa incorporates both morphological and molecular data. Species delimitation can bypass ultrastructure data because resolution provided by TEM is not definitive at the species level (Hurdeal et al. 2023). Furthermore, obtaining good quality ultrastructure data is often a bottleneck as not all species produce zoospores abundantly. Also, the expertise of interpreting zoospore ultrastructure data is limited, and the equipment not widely accessible to researchers. Hence, this slows down progress in describing the largely uncharacterized chytrid diversity (Tables 5 and 6).

Diversity and distribution information for chytrids is significantly lower relative to that for members of the Dikarya. However, steady progress has been made in the last twenty years, with many studies from the Americas (Letcher et al. 2008; Longcore 2004, 2011; Simmons et al. 2009, 2020, 2021; Wakefield et al. 2010; Marano et al. 2011; Longcore and Simmons 2012; Longcore et al. 2012; Vélez et al. 2013; Davis et al. 2015). Descriptions of new taxa are also coming from other parts of the globe (Seto and Degawa 2018a, b; van den Wyngaert et al. 2018; Hyde et al. 2019; Seto et al. 2020a, b; Karpov et al. 2021; Hurdeal et al. 2023). Collectively, these studies depict a broad distribution of chytrids in various parts of the world.

In this study, we increase the global knowledge of chytrids by introducing eight new rhizophydialean species from Thailand. Delineation of these species is based on a tripartite approach including morphological characterization, phylogenetic analyses based on ITS-LSU genetic markers and PTP. The morphology of the new species differs somewhat from the described species within the genera. Differences include the sizes of the reproductive structures and other morphological characters such as number of discharge papillae. However, because morphological characters are few and differ only slightly, we place the most emphasis on phylogenetic analyses of molecular data.

Phylogeny provided high statistical support for the establishment of most of the new taxa except in Terramyces, for which statistical support is low. This may be indicative of low resolution of the ingroups, or problematic sequences. Hence, in total in this study, the PTP analysis divided the currently known Terramyces strains into six groups, each group representative of a separate species. This reflects the effects of taxon sampling and the relative genetic distance among and within species. In all analyses, however, the placement of strains and taxa was stable. In Terramyces, the observed pairwise nucleotide differences spanned from 1.1% to 9%. The 1.1% divergence appears relatively low for the delineation of a new species. PTP suggests the possibility that groups 1–3 may indeed constitute a single taxonomic entity. This underscores the importance of employing the PTP method repeatedly as new strains and species are uncovered. Hence, the iterative application of PTP is crucial for achieving a more stable and accurate taxonomic classification.

Similarly, in Gorgonomyces the type strain Gorgonomyces haynaldii ARG 026 segregated from ARG 024, whereas previously the two grouped together. Hence, as Hurdeal et al. (2023) suggested, phylogenetic analysis is a dynamic process and as new strains become available, analyses are needed to validate the use of PTP or any new phylogenetic tools. Our results indicate that not only is generic diversity high but diversity is also high at the species level.

For the rest of the concerned monospecific genera, the PTP provided indication and evidence for the novelty of our isolates. However, as more strains and species become available, the analyses may need to be re-evaluated. Our new Pateramyces isolate differs by 20% from the P. corrientinensis clade in the trimmed ITS genetic marker indicating a high degree of genetic diversity in the genus.

Pateramyces and Alphamyces were previously monotypic genera isolated from Argentina. Letcher et al. (2008), introduced family and genus based on three isolates. From currently known data, the two genera are saprobes on pollen grains, whereas their diversity and distribution seem to be restricted to aquatic environments. Hence, it is evident from this and previous studies, that our knowledge of chytrid diversity remains quite limited. Consequently, the precision of the methods employed and their morphological characteristics are still uncertain. Future research will require thorough investigation into the ecology, re-evaluation of various taxonomic ranks, and the study of historical morphological species in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of this group of fungi.

Authors’ contributions

Vedprakash G. Hurdeal: Conceptualization, Methodological design, Formal analysis, Conducting investigations, original draft composition, Manuscript review and editing, Data visualization. Joyce E. Longcore: Writing – review & editing. E.B. Gareth Jones: Resource management, Manuscript review and editing. Kevin D. Hyde: Resource allocation, Manuscript review and editing. Eleni Gentekaki: Conceptual framework development, Resource coordination, Manuscript review and editing.

Funding

Vedprakash G. Hurdeal expresses his gratitude to Mae Fah Luang University for the Thesis or Dissertation writing grant (Oh7702(6)/0156) and research publication. Kevin D. Hyde acknowledges the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT) grant “Total fungal diversity in a given forest area with implications towards species numbers, chemical diversity and biotechnology” (grant no. N42A650547).

Availability of data and materials

The final concatenated matrix and ML trees were deposited to Figshare (10.6084/m9.figshare.24910779). The sequence data generated in this study will be available in NCBI upon publication.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.