Skip to main content
NCBI home page
MycoKeys logoLink to MycoKeys
. 2019 Jun 10;54:49–76. doi: 10.3897/mycokeys.54.34571

Octosporaconidiophora (Pyronemataceae) – a new species from South Africa and the first report of anamorph in bryophilous Pezizales

Zuzana Sochorová 1,3,✉, Peter Döbbeler 2, Michal Sochor 3, Jacques van Rooy 4,5
PMCID: PMC6579791  PMID: 31231165

Abstract Abstract

Octosporaconidiophora is described as a new species, based on collections from South Africa. It is characterised by apothecia with a distinct margin, smooth or finely warted ellipsoid ascospores, stiff, thick-walled hyaline hairs, warted mycelial hyphae and growth on pleurocarpous mosses Trichosteleumperchlorosum and Sematophyllumbrachycarpum (Hypnales) on decaying wood in afromontane forests. It is the first species of bryophilous Pezizales in which an anamorph has been observed; it produces long, claviform, curved, hyaline and transversely septate conidia. Three other cryptic species of Octospora were detected using three molecular markers (LSU and SSU nrDNA and EF1α), but these could not be distinguished phenotypically. These are not described formally here and an informal species aggregate O.conidiophora agg. is established for them. The new species and finds of Lamprosporacampylopodis growing on Campylopuspyriformis and Neottiellaalbocincta on Atrichumandrogynum represent the first records of bryophilous Pezizales in South Africa.

Keywords: Afromontane forests, bryosymbionts, conidia, cryptic biodiversity, muscicolous parasites, Sematophyllum , Trichosteleum , South Africa

Introduction

The family Pyronemataceae is not only highly diverse in terms of morphology but also ecologically (Perry et al. 2007, Hansen et al. 2013). It includes six related genera that obligately grow on bryophytes – Octospora Hedw., Lamprospora De Not., Neottiella (Cooke) Sacc., Octosporopsis U.Lindem. & M.Vega, Octosporella Döbbeler and Filicupula Y.J.Yao & Spooner. These ascomycetes, known as bryoparasitic, bryophilous or bryosymbiotic Pezizales, form ca. 0.2–15 mm broad apothecia or perithecia-like apothecia (in Octosporella), coloured in shades of orange or red. They infect their hosts by elaborate infection structures consisting of superficial appressoria and intracellular haustoria (Döbbeler 1980). Together with their hosts, they can be found on various substrates like soil, burnt ground, rocks or bark and wood, both in natural and anthropogenic habitats in arctic to tropical regions (e.g. Benkert 1987; Schumacher 1993; Döbbeler 1997; Egertová et al. 2018).

Only rare reports of bryophilous Pezizales from the African continent are known: Lamprosporamaireana Seaver, described on the basis of material from Algeria (Seaver 1914); Octosporatetraspora(Fuckel)Korfvar.aegyptiaca J.Moravec from Egypt (Moravec 1972), later revised by D. Benkert as O.leucolomaHedw.var.tetraspora Benkert, as indicated by his revision label; and O.kilimanjarensis J.Moravec, described from Tanzania (Moravec 1997) and later reported from Ethiopia together with a probably undescribed Octospora species (Lindemann 2013).

From southern Africa, thus far, no finds of these fungi have been reported and no vouchers are deposited in the South African National Collection of Fungi (PREM; Riana Jacobs-Venter pers. comm.). Surprisingly, during three weeks of our field excursions in KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumalanga, eastern South Africa, in February and March 2018, 39 populations of bryophilous Pezizales (Octospora, Lamprospora and Neottiella) were recorded. Only three of them could be assigned to described species, based on morphological characters, host association and DNA sequencing: Lamprosporacampylopodis W.D.Buckley growing on Campylopuspyriformis (Schultz) Brid. (two collections) and Neottiellaalbocincta (Berk. & M.A.Curtis) Sacc. on Atrichumandrogynum (Müll. Hal.) A.Jaeger (one collection). The remaining specimens were separated into six morphospecies. One of them, an undescribed Octospora species, growing on pleurocarpous mosses from the family Sematophyllaceae (Hypnales), turned out to be very common and remarkable in several aspects after detailed analysis. The aim of this contribution is to provide a description of this species, clarify its phylogenetic relationships and discuss associated taxonomical problems.

Methods

Sample collection and observation

Fungi were collected in February and March 2018 in South African Provinces KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumalanga. The description of Octosporaconidiophora is based on 11 collections belonging to the most frequent genotype. Observations of apothecial features were made on vital (marked by *) or rehydrated (†) material mostly in tap water, cresyl blue (CRB), lactophenol cotton blue (LPCB) or lactic acid cotton blue (LACB). Absence of amyloidity of asci was confirmed in Lugol´s solution. Infection structures were observed on rehydrated material. Parts of the host plants (leaves and rhizoids) close to an apothecium were separated, pulled apart, treated with LPCB and studied by light microscopy. The preparations were screened at 100× to 200× magnification for the presence of conidia. Infection structures and conidia usually occurred in the same mounts. Illustrations and measurements of hyphae, appressoria and haustoria, as well as conidia, were done in LPCB. The mosses were identified as hosts, based on the presence of appressoria on leaves or rhizoids. The host species were determined using standard techniques for bryophytes (Magill 1981). Collections are deposited in the Mycological department of the National Museum in Prague (PRM) and the herbarium of the Botanische Staatssammlung München (M).

DNA extraction, PCR amplification and sequencing

DNA was extracted from dried apothecia by the CTAB method as outlined by Doyle and Doyle (1987). Up to three apothecia were homogenised by a pestle and incubated in 300 μl extraction buffer at 65 °C for one hour; the extract was subsequently purified in chloroform-isoamyl alcohol mixture, precipitated by isopropanol and finally dissolved in water and incubated with RNase for 30 min at 37 °C. DNA quality was checked on agarose gel. Molecular sequence data were generated for three loci: the 28S subunit of ribosomal DNA (LSU) was amplified with primers LR0R and LR6 (Vilgalys and Hester 1990), the 18S subunit of rDNA (SSU) with primers NS1 and NS6 (White et al. 1990) and translation elongation factor-1alpha (EF1α) with primers EF1-983F and EF1–1567R (Rehner and Buckley 2005). PCR was performed with Kapa polymerase (Kapa Biosystems, Wilmington, USA) following a standard protocol with 37 cycles and annealing temperature of 54 °C. The PCR products were purified by precipitation with polyethylene glycol (10% PEG 6000 and 1.25 M NaCl in the precipitation mixture) and sequenced from both directions using the same primers by the Sanger method at Macrogen Europe, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Phylogenetic analysis

Newly generated sequences were assembled, edited and aligned in Geneious 7.1.7. (Biomatters, New Zealand) using the MAFFT plugin, manually corrected and deposited in NCBI GenBank under accession numbers MK569288–MK569376. Datasets were compiled from these and previously published sequences (Table 1), aligned, trimmed in order not to contain too many missing data at the ends and concatenated in Geneious 7.1.7. Bayesian Inference for concatenated data was computed in Mrbayes (ver. 3.2.4; Ronquist et al. 2012) with 2×107 generations, sampling every 1000th tree, in two independent runs, each with 4 chains, the first 50% (107) generations being excluded as burn-in. The most suitable substitution model for each locus was determined in Partitionfinder 2.1.1 (Lanfear et al. 2017) using the AIC corrected for small samples (AICc) and a greedy search. Single-locus phylogenies were computed with similar settings, but with 6×106 MCMC generations and the parameter temp. = 0.01.

Table 1.

Specimens used for the phylogeny inference and their GenBank accession numbers. Newly generated sequences are MK569288–MK569376.

Taxon Collection code LSU SSU EF1α
Lamprosporacampylopodis W.D.Buckley 48633 MF066054 MK569364 MK569289
Lamprosporadictydiola Boud. ldic MF754056 MK569365 MF754054
LamprosporaminiataDe Not.var.parvispora Benkert LMSk MF066065 MK569366 MF754055
Lamprosporasylvatica Egertová & Eckstein UA1 MG947604 MK569367 MK569290
Neottiellarutilans (Fr.) Dennis 46853 MK569313 MK569336 MK569288
Neottiellavivida (Nyl.) Dennis NVZla MF066068 MK569337 MF754051
Octosporaaffinis Benkert & L.G.Krieglst. OAFZla MF754075 MK569347 MF754045
Octosporaconidiophora Sochorová & Döbbeler ZE11/18 MK569315 MK569348 MK569291
Octospora conidiophora ZE23/18 MK569324 MK569349 MK569294
Octospora conidiophora ZE45/18 MK569316 MK569296
Octospora conidiophora ZE46/18 MK569317 MK569350 MK569298
Octospora conidiophora ZE48/18 MK569321 MK569351 MK569297
Octospora conidiophora ZE57/18 MK569318 MK569352 MK569295
Octospora conidiophora ZE62/18 MK569323 MK569354 MK569299
Octospora conidiophora ZE63/18 MK569319 MK569355 MK569292
Octospora conidiophora ZE71/18 MK569322 MK569356 MK569293
Octospora conidiophora ZE75/18 MK569320 MK569357 MK569300
Octospora conidiophora ZE77/18 MK569331 MK569353 MK569301
Octosporaconidiophora agg. – lineage B ZE37/18 MK569325 MK569358 MK569302
Octosporaconidiophora agg. – lineage B ZE38/18 MK569329 MK569359 MK569303
Octosporaconidiophora agg. – lineage B ZE51/18 MK569327 MK569362 MK569306
Octosporaconidiophora agg. – lineage B ZE52/18 MK569326 MK569360 MK569304
Octosporaconidiophora agg. – lineage B ZE53/18 MK569328 MK569361 MK569307
Octosporaconidiophora agg. – lineage B ZE65/18 MK569330 MK569363 MK569305
Octosporaconidiophora agg. – lineage C ZE44/18 MK569332 MK569373 MK569308
Octosporaconidiophora agg. – lineage C ZE56/18 MK569333 MK569374 MK569309
Octosporaconidiophora agg. – lineage D ZE69/18 MK569334 MK569375 MK569310
Octosporaerzbergeri Benkert ERZ MF754068 MK569340 MF754042
Octosporaexcipulata (Clem.) Benkert OExc MF754062 MK569369 MF754047
Octosporafissidentis Benkert & Brouwer Fis MF754073 MK569341 MF754044
Octosporahumosa (Fr.) Dennis OHZla MF754074 MK569343 MF754043
Octosporaithacaensis (Rehm) K.B.Khare OLOi MF754071 MK569346 MF754053
Octosporakelabitiana Egertová & Döbbeler Oct-Jat MF754065 MK569372 MF754048
Octospora kelabitiana ZE61/16 MF754064 MK569376 MF754049
Octosporaleucoloma Hedw. Oleu MF066067 MK569370
Octosporaorthotrichi (Cooke & Ellis) K.B.Khare & V.P.Tewari HR8 MK569314 MK569342 MK569311
Octosporaphagospora (Flageolet & Lorton) Dennis & Itzerott PHG44 MF754072 MK569344 MF754046
Octosporapseudoampezzana (Svrček) Caillet & Moyne OP1 MF754069 MK569339 MF754050
Octosporawrightii (Berk. & M.A.Curtis) J.Moravec WRIG MF754070 MK569345
Octosporellaperforata (Döbbeler) Döbbeler PERF MF754060 MK569368 MF754052
Octosporopsiserinacea Egertová & Döbbeler DUM20/1 MF754057 MK569338 MF754041
Otidealeporina (Batsch) Fuckel KGOL MK569335 MK569371 MK569312
Open in a new tab

Divergence times were estimated with Beast 2.5.1 (Bouckaert et al. 2014) using the LSU and SSU data from our sample set (one sample per species or phylogenetic lineage) and six additional species: Caloscyphafulgens (Pers.) Boud., Scutelliniascutellata (L.) Lambotte, Cheilymeniastercorea (Pers.) Boud., Aleuriaaurantia (Pers.) Fuckel, Pyronemadomesticum (Sowerby) Sacc. and Sarcoscyphacoccinea (Gray) Boud. (all sequences obtained from Beimforde et al. 2014; EF1α was not analysed by these authors and, therefore, not included in our molecular dating). Four calibration points were used for the analysis and the divergence times, together with their confidence intervals, were also taken from Beimforde et al. (2014), namely divergence Cheilymenia-Scutellinia, divergence Aleuria-(Cheilymenia+Scutellinia), split-off of Sarcoscypha and split-off of Caloscypha. Monophyly was forced for all of the points except the second one due to an unclear position of the Octospora clade. Analysis was run under GTR+I+G substitution model (as for Mrbayes), with relaxed clock log normal model and 108 MCMC generations, but the first 50% were excluded as burn-in. Priors included the Yule model with uniform birth rate and exponential gamma shape. Convergence and stationarity were analysed using Tracer v1.7.1 (Rambaut et al. 2018) and results were considered when effective sample size (ESS) ≥ 1000. Statistical uncertainty of divergence time estimates was assessed through the calculation of highest probability density (HPD) values.

Results

Phylogenetic and phenotypic analysis

After trimming, the total length of the concatenated alignment was 2702 bp (539 bp from EF1α, 1102 bp from LSU and 1061 bp from SSU, including gaps). Every studied locus provided sufficient polymorphism both amongst and within previously phenotypically delimited groups (Suppl. material 1: Table S1). Four distinct phylogenetic lineages were detected in the concatenated data, as well as in single-locus data within the group of specimens that were hosted by Sematophyllaceae (Fig. 1, Suppl. material 2: Fig. S1). Divergence between them was between 4 and 59 nucleotide differences at every locus (Suppl. material 1: Table S1). The four South African lineages formed a highly supported and distinct clade together with O.kelabitiana (Fig. 1). Molecular dating analysis estimated the basal split of bryophilous Pezizales to be 87–172 Ma old (95% confidence interval; mean = 149 Ma), the basal split of the South African accessions was estimated at 23–73 Ma (mean = 47 Ma; Fig. 2).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Bayesian phylogeny inference, based on concatenated alignment of EF1α, LSU and SSU sequences. Bayesian posterior probabilities are shown above branches; Otidealeporina serves as outgroup; trees based on analysis of each locus are shown in Suppl. material 2: Fig. S1.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Maximum clade credibility tree with estimated divergence times, based on SSU and LSU data; calibration points are marked by red circles, posterior probabilities shown above branches, bars indicate the 95% highest posterior density (HPD) intervals.

No significant differences in phenotypic traits were detected amongst the South African lineages using standard characters and methods. They shared the structure of excipulum, stiff, thick-walled hyaline hairs, ellipsoid hyaline ascospores which can be either smooth or ornamented with fine warts and which contain 1 or 2 guttules, warted mycelial hyphae, appressoria, haustoria and presence of anamorph. Although differences amongst individual collections were observed, phenotypic characters did not correspond to the molecular markers and many characters exhibited variability both amongst and within the four phylogenetic lineages (Table 2).

Table 2.

Variability of selected characters in O.conidiophora agg.

Voucher Ornament of ascospores (†) Size of ascospores [μm] (†) Mean size of ascospores [μm] (†) Q of ascospores (†) Qm Observation of conidia Host
Lineage A - Octosporaconidiophora s. str.
ZE11/18 smooth 14.4–16.0 × 8.0–9.1 15.1 × 8.4 1.65–1.91 1.79 yes S. brachycarpum
ZE23/18 smooth 14.0–16.3 × 7.5–9.0 14.9 × 8.0 1.66–2.03 1.84 yes T. perchlorosum
ZE45/18 smooth 13.6–16.2 × 7.5–8.3 15.2 × 7.9 1.74–2.08 1.92 yes T. perchlorosum
ZE46/18 smooth 15.0–17.0 × 8.0–9.9 15.9 × 8.7 1.63–2.06 1.82 yes T. perchlorosum
ZE48/18 smooth 14.5–17.0 × 8.3–9.9 16.1 × 9.0 1.64–1.99 1.79 yes T. perchlorosum
ZE57/18 smooth 14.9–16.2 × 7.9–9.0 15.5 × 8.2 1.69–1.99 1.87 yes T. perchlorosum
ZE62/18 smooth 14.0–16.7 × 8.0–8.9 15.2 × 8.2 1.72–1.99 1.85 yes T. perchlorosum
ZE63/18 smooth 14.0–17.0 × 8.0–9.2 15.4 × 8.7 1.67–1.89 1.77 yes T. perchlorosum
ZE71/18 warted 13.0–15.0 × 8.0–9.9 14.1 × 8.9 1.39–1.73 1.59 no T. perchlorosum
ZE75/18 smooth 14.0–16.1 × 7.8–9.1 15.1 × 8.4 1.65–1.94 1.79 yes T. perchlorosum
ZE77/18 warted 13.5–15.4 × 8.7–10.5 14.4 × 9.4 1.40–1.67 1.53 yes T. perchlorosum
all specimens 13.0–17.0 × 7.5–10.5 15.2 × 8.5 1.39–2.08 1.79
Lineage B
ZE37/18 warted 13.3–15.5 × 8.3–9.9 14.6 × 9.1 1.47–1.82 1.60 yes S. brachycarpum
ZE38/18 warted 12.5–15.1 × 8.0–9.7 13.8 × 8.8 1.46–1.78 1.57 no T. perchlorosum
ZE51/18 warted 13.5–15.7 × 8.4–10.2 14.5 × 9.4 1.45–1.65 1.54 yes T. perchlorosum
ZE52/18 warted 13.5–16.0 × 8.0–9.5 14.7 × 8.8 1.47–1.83 1.66 yes T. perchlorosum
ZE53/18 warted 14.0–15.3 × 8.0–10.1 14.7 × 9.3 1.47–1.85 1.56 no T. perchlorosum
ZE65/18 warted 13.5–16.2 × 7.7–9.9 14.4 × 8.8 1.47–1.75 1.60 yes T. perchlorosum
all specimens 12.5–16.2 × 7.7–10.2 14.5 × 9.1 1.45–1.85 1.59
Lineage C
ZE44/18 warted 13.5–15.9 × 7.2–8.1 14.6 × 7.8 1.71–2.01 1.87 yes S. brachycarpum
ZE56/18 warted 13.1–15.4 × 7.0–8.2 14.1 × 7.6 1.66–2.11 1.84 yes S. brachycarpum
both specimens 13.1–15.9 × 7.0–8.2 14.3 × 7.7 1.66–2.11 1.86
Lineage D
ZE69/18 smooth or lightly warted 13.5–18.0 × 7.9–9.9 15.5 × 8.6 1.61–2.02 1.80 yes S. brachycarpum
Open in a new tab

Taxonomy

Octospora conidiophora

Sochorová & Döbbeler sp. nov.

MB829095

Figs 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Octosporaconidiophora. A–E Apothecia in situ F Habitat A, E ZE63/18 B ZE57/18 C, F ZE11/18 D holotype ZE48/18.

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

Microscopic characters of Octosporaconidiophora. A Ascospores inside ascus stained with CRBB Free ascospores in tap water C Paraphyse in tap water D Young ascus in tap water E Margin of apothecium in tap water F Hair and excipular cells in tap water A–F ZE77/18.

Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Open in a new tab

Microscopic characters of Octosporaconidiophora. A Cells of the outermost layer of excipulum from an outside view stained with CRBBMycelial hypha stained with CRBC Appressoria and hyphae on a leaf of Sematophyllumbrachycarpum in tap water D Appressorium stained with LACBE Germinating conidium stained with LPCBF Germinated conidium produced a bifurcate warted hypha (right arrow), appressorium (left arrow) probably not connected to the conidium, in LACBA, B, F ZE77/18 C, E ZE11/18 D holotype ZE48/18.

Figure 6.

Figure 6.

Open in a new tab

Microscopic characters of Octosporaconidiophora. A Hypha with two-celled appresorium closely attached to the cells of the host leaf B Ascospores C Germinating ascospores found on leaves D Variation of appressoria mostly seen from above, infection pegs not always observed, appressoria seen in lateral view with infection pegs (indicated by arrows) A, B, D holotype ZE48/18 C ZE11/18. Scale bar: 30 µm. Illustrated by P.D.

Figure 7.

Figure 7.

Open in a new tab

Microscopic characters of Octosporaconidiophora. A–C, E–H Conidia, distal curved part apparently sometimes broken off, some conidia germinating D Conidogenous cells, on the right with a developing conidium E (on the right) Conidium anastomosing to mycelial hypha with two-celled appressorium F Conidium germinating by a hypha with a warty surface and a two-celled appressorium G Conidium with anastomosis to mycelial hypha H (on the right) Two germinating conidia with an anastomosis between them A, F ZE63/18 B ZE46/18 C ZE77/18 D, E holotype ZE48/18 G ZE57/18 H ZE11/18. Scale bar: 50 µm. Illustrated by P.D.

Figure 8.

Figure 8.

Open in a new tab

Geographical distribution of the four lineages of Octosporaconidiophora agg. in South Africa. Red circle: lineage A (O. conidiophora s.str.); green triangle: lineage B; light blue square: lineage C, dark blue star: lineage D.

Figure 9.

Figure 9.

Open in a new tab

Microscopic characters of Octosporaconidiophora agg. (lineage B). A Conidia, distal curved part apparently sometimes broken off, five conidia germinating by formation of usually a single hypha, conidium on the left connected to a hypha by two anastomoses B Strongly warted hyphae, the left one seen from above, the two others in optical section C Appresssoria infecting rhizoids in lateral view, the right one seen from above, infection pegs surrounded by lignituber-like tubes formed by the host cell wall, intracellular haustoria present apart from the lowermost infection where the peg is completely encapsulated by the host cell wall A, B, C ZE37/18. Scale bars: 50 µm (A); 30 µm (B, C). Illustrated by P.D.

Etymology.

Conidiophorus (Gr./Lat.) refers to production of conidia.

Diagnosis.

Differs from Octosporakelabitiana by larger apothecia with a distinct margin, infection of pleurocarpous mosses of the family Sematophyllaceae and frequent formation of a Spermospora-like anamorph.

TYPE: SOUTH AFRICA. KwaZulu-Natal Province: Uthukela District Municipality, uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park, Injasuti, 29°7.72'S, 29°25.27'E, 1750 m alt., on Trichosteleumperchlorosum on decaying wood, 2 Mar. 2018, Z. Egertová (Sochorová) and M. Sochor ZE48/18, holotype: PRM 951743, isotype: M; LSU GenBank accession number: MK569321, SSU GenBank accession number: MK569351, EF1α GenBank accession number: MK569297.

Description.

Apothecialfeatures: Apothecia in groups on plants of Trichosteleumperchlorosum or Sematophyllumbrachycarpum or between them, 0.2–1.5 mm broad, up to 0.65 mm high, first subglobose with a small apical opening, later hemispherical, turbinate to disc-shaped, pinkish-orange, sessile, mostly with a well-developed margin, outer surface of excipulum with adpressed to shortly protruding hairs or hyphae.

Hairs *55–205 × 4–10.5 µm, scattered at flanks, hyaline, scarcely septate, obtuse, thick-walled, wall *0.5–3.5 µm thick. Excipulum at the base *230–330 µm thick, laterally about 50 µm thick, composed of angular to subangular (triangular, trapezoid, rectangular), globose, subglobose or irregularly shaped cells, *6–43 × 5–42 µm, outermost cells thick-walled (neighbouring cells divided by up to *6 µm broad wall). Margin *60–280 µm broad, consisting of globose, subglobose, pyriform or trapezoid cells, *10–38 × 7–30 µm.

Subhymenium *40–75 µm wide, consisting of densely packed cylindrical cells *3–7 µm wide mixed with angular or irregularly shaped cells, *4.5–8 × 4.5–6 µm. Paraphyses filiform, straight or bent, unbranched, septate, uppermost one or two cells containing little very pale droplets (*0.5–2 µm in diameter), *2.1–3.5 µm broad (†1.5–2.3 µm), terminal cell *19–83 × 3–7 µm (†18–57 × 3–5.5 µm). Asci *146–197 × 12–15.5 µm (†135–192 × 9.5–12.5 µm), cylindrical, unitunicate, operculate, inamyloid, arising from croziers, with 8 uniseriate ascospores. Ascospores *13–17.2 × 7–10.5 µm, mean 15.2 × 9 µm, Q = 1.34–1.99, Qm = 1.69 (†13–17 × 7.5–10.5 µm, mean 15.2 × 8.5 µm, Q = 1.39–2.08, Qm = 1.79), ellipsoid to narrowly ellipsoid, hyaline, containing one or two lipid guttules (up to *8 µm in diameter if one, *4–5.5 µm if two), smooth or ornamented with cyanophilous, very small, obtuse warts 0.1–0.3 µm broad; germinating with a single germ tube.

Mycelial (†): Hyphae restricted to the lowermost plant parts, irregularly growing on and between the leaf bases, stems and especially the rhizoids, hyaline, with ramifications and anastomoses, often thick-walled, (2–)3–6(–7) µm in diameter (excluding ornamentation); hyphal surface with minute to large protuberances, in optical section with numerous minute or larger, semi- or subglobose warts or spines, in surface view, these structures sometimes looking like ridges extended perpendicularly to the hyphal axis; largest warts up to 1.5(–2) µm high; hyphae growing within hyphae present; whole hyphal wall slightly cyanophilous, outermost rough part strongly cyanophilous.

Appressoria variable, frequent (even more than 30 per leaf observed) and easy to detect, closely attached to both leaf sides or to rhizoids, colourless, 1-, 2- or 3-celled, from above elliptical, (14–)16–23(–26) µm long, (8–)11–16 µm wide, laterally seen slightly kidney-shaped, (7–)9–13(–16) µm high, with walls up to 2.5(–4) µm thick; surface rough but not warty, cyanophilous; appressorial cytoplasma strongly cyanophilous; appressoria mostly laterally formed on short stalks; stalks often gradually expanding toward the appressorium; perforation of the host cell wall by means of a delicate peg; peg often surrounded by a brown, straight or curved lignituber-like swelling measuring up to 10(–15) × 2–4(–6) µm; rhizoid wall at the perforation point slightly uplifted towards the appressorium; perforation point not always visible from above.

Haustoria within living leaf cells or rhizoidal cells, at first as a thick short filament, later becoming up to 55 µm long, orientated longitudinally in the rhizoid and developing ramifications (in wider rhizoids), rarely filling out the whole host cell; haustorial cytoplasm strongly cyanophilous.

Anamorph (†): Conidia variable in shape and size, claviform, hyaline, transversely septate, ca. (50–)70–115(–154) µm long (including the tail); proximal cell usually distinctly wider than the subproximal cell, rarely cells almost cylindrical, both cells measuring together (30–)35–48(–55) × (6–)7.5–12(–15) µm, subproximal cell continuously attenuating into a tail; tail typically curved to curled, 1- or 2-(3-)celled, (15–)30–60(–100) µm long and (1.5–)2(–2.5) µm in diameter at the distal end; proximal cell of the conidia with a conspicuous, circular, slightly protruding, delicately fringed scar, (3–)4(–4.5) µm in diameter, resulting from detachment from the conidiogenous cell; scar sometimes slightly laterally positioned; walls of conidia cyanophilous; the two proximal cells smooth, the tail sometimes warty (like the hyphae); germ tube one (to three) per conidium, arising from the scar or laterally from different regions of the conidia, including the tail cells.

Conidiogenous cells irregularly shaped, shorter and wider than sterile hyphal cells, rich in cytoplasmic content, usually with 1(–2) scars; shape and size of the scars like those at the conidia, also with a delicately fringed margin.

Hosts.

Trichosteleumperchlorosum, Sematophyllumbrachycarpum (Sematophyllaceae, Hypnales)

Distribution.

South Africa, Mpumalanga and KwaZulu-Natal Provinces (Fig. 8).

Conservation status.

Octosporaconidiophora seems to be a common representative of the genus in South Africa, widespread and forming abundant populations. Its hosts are also common and widespread in the region (see below). Although the main habitat (afromontane forest) is naturally fragmented, it is often protected against human activities by nature reserves or national parks. Therefore, O.conidiophora does not fulfil the criteria for categories CR (critically endangered) to NT (near threatened) and we propose its evaluation as LC (least concern) for the present moment.

Additional specimens examined.

South Africa. Mpumalanga Province: Ehlanzeni District Municipality, Graskop Gorge, 24°56.74'S, 30°50.8'E, 1355 m alt., on Trichosteleumperchlorosum on decaying wood, 6 Mar. 2018, Z. Egertová and M. Sochor ZE62/18 (PRM 951745); Ehlanzeni District Municipality, Graskop Gorge, 24°56.88'S, 30°50.75'E, 1435 m alt., on Trichosteleumperchlorosum on decaying wood, 6 Mar. 2018, Z. Egertová and M. Sochor ZE63/18 (PRM 951746); Ehlanzeni District Municipality, Buffelskloof Nature Reserve, 25°15.98'S, 30°31.08'E, 1725 m alt., on Trichosteleumperchlorosum on decaying wood, 10 Mar. 2018, Z. Egertová and M. Sochor ZE75/18 (PRM 951748); Ehlanzeni District Municipality, Buffelskloof Nature Reserve, 25°16.37'S, 30°30.62'E, 1605 m alt., on Trichosteleumperchlorosum on decaying wood, 9 Mar. 2018, Z. Egertová and M. Sochor ZE71/18 (PRM 951747); Ehlanzeni District Municipality, Buffelskloof Nature Reserve, 25°16.53'S, 30°30.25'E, 1625 m alt., on Trichosteleumperchlorosum on decaying wood, 10 Mar. 2018, Z. Egertová and M. Sochor ZE77/18 (PRM 951749). KwaZulu-Natal Province: Uthukela District Municipality, Royal Natal National Park, 28°40.88'S, 28°55.73'E, 1760 m alt., on Sematophyllumbrachycarpum on decaying stem, 19 Feb. 2018, Z. Egertová and M. Sochor ZE11/18 (PRM 951739); Uthukela District Municipality, Royal Natal National Park, 28°44.05'S, 28°54.85'E, 1800 m alt., on Trichosteleumperchlorosum on decaying stem, 20 Feb. 2018, Z. Egertová and M. Sochor ZE23/18 (PRM 951740). Uthukela District Municipality, uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park, Injasuti, 29°8.95'S, 29°25.35'E, 1665 m alt., on Trichosteleumperchlorosum on decaying wood, 3 Mar. 2018, Z. Egertová and M. Sochor ZE57/18 (PRM 951744); Uthukela District Municipality, uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park, Giants Castle Nature Reserve, 29°16.93'S, 29°30.93'E, 1765 m alt., on Trichosteleumperchlorosum on decaying wood, 1 Mar. 2018, Z. Egertová and M. Sochor ZE46/18 (PRM 951742); Uthukela District Municipality, uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park, Giants Castle Nature Reserve, 29°16.98'S, 29°30.87'E, 1775 m alt., on Trichosteleumperchlorosum on decaying wood, 1 Mar. 2018, Z. Egertová and M. Sochor ZE45/18 (PRM 951741).

Data to other lineages.

Lineage B: Mpumalanga Province: Ehlanzeni District Municipality, 3040 m WSW from the Graskop railway station, 24°56.28'S, 30°48.65'E, 1495 m alt., on Trichosteleumperchlorosum on decaying wood, 7 Mar. 2018, Z. Egertová and M. Sochor ZE65/18 (PRM 951735). KwaZulu-Natal Province: Uthukela District Municipality, uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park, Injasuti, 29°7.62'S, 29°25.33'E, 1725 m alt., on Trichosteleumperchlorosum on decaying wood, 2 Mar. 2018, Z. Egertová and M. Sochor ZE51/18 (PRM 951732); Uthukela District Municipality, uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park, Injasuti, 29°7.57'S, 29°25.38'E, 1715 m alt., on Trichosteleumperchlorosum on decaying wood, 2 Mar. 2018, Z. Egertová and M. Sochor ZE52/18 (PRM 951733); Uthukela District Municipality, uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park, Injasuti, 29°7.98'S, 29°26.25'E, 1500 m alt., on Trichosteleumperchlorosum on decaying wood, 2 Mar. 2018, Z. Egertová and M. Sochor ZE53/18 (PRM 951734); Sisonke District Municipality, Marutswa Forest, 29°48.55'S, 29°47.28'E, 1465 m alt., on Sematophyllumbrachycarpum on decaying stem, 24 Feb. 2018, Z. Egertová and M. Sochor ZE37/18 (PRM 951730); Sisonke District Municipality, Marutswa Forest, 29°48.6'S, 29°47.37'E, 1480 m alt., on Trichosteleumperchlorosum on decaying stem, 24 Feb. 2018, Z. Egertová and M. Sochor ZE38/18 (PRM 951731).

Lineage C: KwaZulu-Natal Province: Uthukela District Municipality, uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park, Giants Castle Nature Reserve, 29°17.02'S, 29°30.87'E, 1780 m alt., on Sematophyllumbrachycarpum on decaying wood, 28 Feb. 2018, Z. Egertová and M. Sochor ZE44/18 (PRM 951736); Uthukela District Municipality, uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park, Injasuti, 29°8.33'S, 29°25.68'E, 1565 m alt., on Sematophyllumbrachycarpum on decaying wood, 3 Mar. 2018, Z. Egertová and M. Sochor ZE56/18 (PRM 951737).

Lineage D: Mpumalanga Province: Ehlanzeni District Municipality, Buffelskloof Nature Reserve, 25°16.93'S, 30°30.45'E, 1470 m alt., on Sematophyllumbrachycarpum on decaying wood, 9 Mar. 2018, Z. Egertová and M. Sochor ZE69/18 (PRM 951738).

Taxonomic affinities.

The phylogenetically closest and phenotypically most similar species is Octosporakelabitiana described from Borneo, which shares most characters with the African species. It also has apothecia with stiff, thick-walled hyaline hairs, ellipsoid, hyaline ascospores of similar size like O.conidiophora († in H2O (13.5)14.5–17(18) × 7–8(9) μm, in LPCB (12.5)13–16(17) × (6.5)7–8(8.5) μm), filiform, unbranched paraphyses, smooth appressoria of similar size and even the warted mycelial hyphae, which is a character unknown in any other species of bryophilous Pezizales (Egertová et al. 2018). Nevertheless, it can be distinguished easily by growth on a completely different host – thallose liverworts from the genus Riccardia Gray. Furthermore, its apothecia are smaller, often taller than wide and lack a distinct margin. Its appressoria are usually one-celled, less often two-celled, while in O.conidiophora, two-celled appressoria are very common and even three-celled ones were found. Anamorph has not been detected in O.kelabitiana.

Discussion

According to the available literature and data from the main South African public fungarium (PREM), bryophilous Pezizales are completely unknown from southern Africa, despite the fact that this is a large and species-rich region, which hosts a very diverse bryoflora (Van Rooy and Phephu 2016). Our initial work revealed that this group of fungi is relatively common and probably also very diverse in southern Africa, despite the fact that the work was carried out in extraordinarily dry (and thus unsuitable) summer. Amongst others, four phenotypically similar, yet molecularly distinct lineages were discovered on two host species (lineages A and B on Trichosteleumperchlorosum and Sematophyllumbrachycarpum, lineages C and D only on S.brachycarpum). This research brings novel insights into evolution and systematics of bryophilous ascomycetes and also raises important questions on taxonomic evaluation of these lineages. Therefore, we briefly discuss the taxonomy of cryptic taxa and suggest a suitable taxonomic solution for our collections. As O.conidiophora is the first species of bryophilous Pezizales with a detected anamorph, we also discuss this finding. Finally, diagnostic characters and data on distribution of the host mosses are provided as they may help expand the known distribution area of O.conidiophora in the future.

Taxonomic approach

The four lineages could not be distinguished phenotypically on the basis of characters that are normally studied in bryophilous Pezizales, although genetic differentiation was very high at all of the three studied loci (Suppl. material 1: Table S1). Such great genetic distances are usually observed amongst different species or even genera. The observed genetic distances, together with molecular dating, imply that the phenotypically more or less homogeneous morphotype actually represents a group of several cryptic species that have already become reproductively isolated in the Tertiary (Fig. 2). Similar cryptic diversity is probably quite common in fungi, including many genera of Pezizales, e.g. Genea Vittad. (Smith et al. 2006, Alvarado et al. 2016), Geopyxis (Pers.) Sacc. (Wang et al. 2016), Helvella L. (Nguyen et al. 2013, Skrede et al. 2017), Terfezia (Tul. & C.Tul.) Tul. & C.Tul. (Ferdman et al. 2009), Trichophaea Boud. (Van Vooren 2016) and Tuber P.Micheli ex F.H.Wigg. (Bonuso et al. 2010). In bryophilous Pezizales, intraspecific sequence variability was observed, e.g. in Octosporopsisnicolai (Maire) U.Lindem., M.Vega & T.Richt. (Lindemann et al. 2014) and Octosporakelabitiana (Egertová et al. 2018). Each of the species comprised two genetic lineages that, nevertheless, were relatively weakly diverged and were therefore not treated taxonomically. Besides the significant genetic distances amongst the South African populations, another fact speaks against the possibility that the four lineages could be treated as a single species; the whole clade includes Octosporakelabitiana (Fig. 1), a distinct species from Borneo infecting liverwort Riccardia. A widely defined species (i.e. including the four lineages but excluding O.kelabitiana) would therefore be paraphyletic.

The current approach of many authors to delimitation of species is based primarily or solely on DNA sequence data and sequence-based diagnoses have become almost a common practice in macromycetes (e.g. Buyck et al. 2016, Leacock et al. 2016, Taşkın et al. 2016, Wang et al. 2016, Korhonen et al. 2018). Some authors even aim to base descriptions of new species on environmental sequence data only (e.g. Hibbett et al. 2011). Although molecular phylogenetics is an excellent tool for evaluation of biodiversity, assignment of scientific binominal to molecularly defined species leads to several practical problems, mainly those related to limited accessibility of the methods for many field mycologists. Especially in developing countries, in which even standard optical microscopy can be barely affordable at the leading institutes, determination of species via DNA sequencing is still a matter for the distant future. This methodological obstacle may soon result (or has already resulted in some groups) in the split of traditional phenotype-based taxonomy and molecular taxonomy. Until recently, molecular taxonomy mostly worked with groups, such as molecular operational taxonomic unit (MOTU; Hibbett et al. 2011), phylogenetic species (O’Donnell et al. 2011), virtual taxon (Öpik et al. 2010) etc. and designated an alphanumeric code to them. Nevertheless, many of the molecular taxa are currently given traditional scientific names, often without studying related, validly described species that cannot be sequenced for various reasons. This process, although justified by the aim of cataloguing of global biodiversity, makes the resulting taxonomy impractical or even unusable for field mycologists (and sometimes also for molecular biologists). Another problem with descriptions of species, based on molecular data, is the fact that the borderline between intraspecific and interspecific molecular variation is often unclear (Thines et al. 2018), dependent on many evolutionary factors (e.g. Leliaert et al. 2014) and may become fuzzy after a more intensive and/or extensive sampling is performed, particularly if only one or few molecular markers are used. Nevertheless, this problem also exists with traditional taxonomy (e.g. Flynn and Miller 1990, Paal et al. 1998, Benkert 2001). One solution to the problems mentioned above is an integrative approach. This takes advantage of both multiple characters (morphology, DNA, ecology etc.) and results in robust, phylogeny-based taxonomy that is accessible to various users (e.g. Araújo et al. 2015, Skrede et al. 2017, Haelewaters et al. 2018).

After thorough consideration of the above-mentioned facts, we decided not to formally describe all of the four discovered cryptic species at the present moment. Instead, we prefer to establish two taxa: O.conidiophora (s.str.), which refers to the most common phylogenetic lineage A and the informal taxon O.conidiophora agg., which applies to all of the four South African cryptic species, but also to the morphologically distinct and host-specific Bornean O.kelabitiana. Although the name O.kelabitiana is older and should therefore be selected for the aggregate, we believe that the name O.conidiophora agg. better suits the pragmatic purposes of this informal taxon. Our approach enables field mycologists to determine their specimens at least on the aggregate level and, at the same time, preserves a monophyletic taxonomical system. Detailed studies may reveal phenotypic differences between the South African lineages of O.conidiophora agg., which can then be formally described as species. Until then, we prefer to leave lineages B, C and D without a Latin binominal.

Anamorph

Conidia have been reported in several genera of Pezizales. The most frequent type of conidia are amerospores which are produced, e.g. in Caloscypha Boud. (Paden et al. 1978), Desmazierella Lib. (Hughes 1951), Iodophanus Korf (Korf 1958, sub Ascophanus Boud.), Pachyphlodes Zobel (Healy et al. 2015), Peziza Fr. (Berthet 1964a, Paden 1967, 1972), Ruhlandiella Henn. (Warcup and Talbot 1989, sub Muciturbo P.H.B.Talbot), Thecotheus Boud. (Conway 1975), Urnula Fr. (Davidson 1950), Cookeina Kuntze, Phillipsia Berk. (Paden 1975), Pithya Fuckel (Paden 1972), Nanoscypha Denison (Pfister 1973), Sarcoscypha (Fr.) Boud. (Harrington 1990), Geopyxis (Paden 1972), Pyropyxis Egger (Egger 1984, Filippova et al. 2016) and Trichophaea (Hennebert 1973). Staurospores can be found in Miladinalecithina (Cooke) Svrček (Descals and Webster 1978). The conidia of O.conidiophora can be classified as scolecospores or phragmospores and are therefore unique amongst Pezizales with known teleomorph. In their shape, they resemble the conidia of the anamorphic genus Spermospora R. Sprague (Ascomycota, Pezizomycotina), a parasite of grasses (Sprague 1948, Seifert et al. 2011).

Detached conidia were regularly found between the rhizoids and leaves in almost all collections of Octosporaconidiophora agg. (with the exception of specimens ZE38/18, ZE53/18 and ZE71/18, probably due to limited material). The distal part of the conidia is sometimes short and straight. It is not clear whether this is an artefact caused by breaking off during preparation, although tail fragments have not been found. Germinating conidia are not rare. Longer germination tubes look like normal hyphae with the characteristic warty surface structure (Figs 5F, 7F). Conidia germinating by a two-celled appressorium (Fig. 7F) or connected to a mycelial hypha by an anastomosis (Figs 7E, G, 9A) have been repeatedly observed. Conidiogenous cells (Fig. 7D) are much more difficult to detect than conidia and have only been found in a few collections. The scars formed by detachment of conidia must not be confused with the ends of torn-off hyphae, which inevitably result during preparation. Fully developed conidia still connected to the conidiogeneous cells have not been found. Apparently, mature conidia easily detach from their conidiogenous cells. A developing, still attached conidium was observed once (Fig. 7D).

Octosporaconidiophora agg. is the first case amongst bryophilous Pezizales in which an anamorph has been detected. The absence of records of anamorphic states in other species can be caused either by their real rarity or only by their difficulty in detection. The latter can have many reasons. First, bryophilous ascomycetes, in general, stand rather on the periphery of researchers´ interest (see Döbbeler 1997). Second, anamorphs are usually inconspicuous and therefore not easy to encounter. Even if an anamorph is found, it can be difficult to link it with the corresponding teleomorph, because many fungal species commonly occur together. Moreover, anamorphs and teleomorphs are often formed in different environmental conditions (Kendrick 1979) and often at different times. And third, anamorphs are often studied in aseptic cultures and subsequently cultures are used for confirmation of their identity by molecular methods; unfortunately, cultivation of bryophilous Pezizales seems to be problematic (Berthet 1964b) and is not commonly attempted. Although an anamorph has not been confirmed by cultivation methods in O.conidiophora agg., the connection of anamorph and teleomorph is based on the evidence discussed above: conidia were repeatedly found amongst the moss plants near the teleomorph; germinating conidia have hyphae with the same ornamentation as observed in the mycelium bearing apothecia; conidiogenous cells occur on the mycelial hyphae; conidia anastomose with mycelial hyphae; the germlings form appressoria.

Hosts

Sematophyllumbrachycarpum (Hampe) Broth.

Syn: Hypnumbrachycarpum Hampe

Sematophyllumbrachycarpum can be distinguished from other species of Sematophyllum in southern Africa by the complanate, straight leaves with relatively large groups of alar cells (in 3–4 rows) that are not much inflated or coloured (Fig. 10, see also Câmara et al. 2019).

Figure 10.

Figure 10.

Open in a new tab

Sematophyllumbrachycarpum.A Plants B Typical shoot with leaves C Leaf D Leaf base with alar cells.

The species is by far the most common and widespread species of Sematophyllum in South Africa; S.brachycarpum is found in forests and wooded areas of the Limpopo, Mpumalanga, North West, Gauteng, Free State, KwaZulu-Natal, Eastern Cape and Western Cape Provinces (Fig. 11, see also Câmara et al. 2019). It occurs as an epiphyte or occasionally on soil or rocks, from sea level up to 1900 m alt. The species is widely distributed throughout the Afromontane Region, as defined by Van Rooy and Van Wyk (2010) and was found to belong to the Widespread Afromontane Subelement, a subdivision of the Afromontane Forest Element (Van Rooy and Van Wyk 2011). The Widespread Afromontane Subelement is centred in the Midlands of KwaZulu-Natal and the Drakensberg escarpment of Mpumalanga as well as in forests in the south-western Cape. The species has also been recorded from Lesotho, Swaziland, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Uganda and Kenya (O’Shea 2006).

Figure 11.

Figure 11.

Open in a new tab

Geographical distribution of Sematophyllumbrachycarpum in southern Africa based on records in BM, L, MO and PRE.

Trichosteleumperchlorosum Broth. & Bryhn

Trichosteleumperchlorosum is the only southern African species of Sematophyllaceae (sensu stricto) with papillose leaf cells. However, the papillae are sometimes difficult to see or may be absent on some leaves. The falcate leaves with enlarged, inflated and coloured alar cells will also help to identify the species (Fig. 12, see also Câmara et al. 2019).

Figure 12.

Figure 12.

Open in a new tab

Trichosteleumperchlorosum. A. Plants. B. Leaf. C. Leaf papillae. D. Alar cells.

The species is endemic to the southern part of Africa and occurs as an epiphyte and also on decaying logs or rocks from sea level up to 3090 m high (Drakensberg of KwaZulu-Natal). It is most frequently collected in the KwaZulu-Natal Province of South Africa, but it is also known from Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Eastern Cape and Western Cape Provinces, as well as Swaziland (Fig. 13, see also Câmara et al. 2019). Trichosteleumperchlorosum is widespread throughout the Afromontane Region sensu Van Rooy and Van Wyk (2010), but unknown from Afromontane outliers in the Magaliesberg of Gauteng and the North West, the eastern Free State and the Waterberg of Limpopo. It was therefore included in the Tropical Afromontane Subelement (Van Rooy and Van Wyk 2011), which is centred in the Drakensberg escarpment of Mpumalanga and the Midlands of KwaZulu-Natal. This species was also reported from Zimbabwe (O’Shea 2006).

Figure 13.

Figure 13.

Open in a new tab

Geographical distribution of Trichosteleumperchlorosum in southern Africa based on records in BM, L, MO and PRE.

Supplementary Material

XML Treatment for Octospora conidiophora
mycokeys.54.34571-treatment1.xml (40.7KB, xml)

Acknowledgements

ZS and MS thank John Manning for financial support of the travel to South Africa. Riana Jacobs-Venter is acknowledged for providing information on the absence of bryophilous Pezizales in the South African National Collection of Fungi and Markéta Šandová and Miriam Brožíková (PRM) for information about Octosporatetrasporavar.aegyptiaca. We are grateful to Hester Steyn and Elizma Fouche for editing the maps and the editor Danny Haelewaters and the reviewers, Nicolas Van Vooren and Donald H. Pfister, for comments to the manuscript. The work was partly supported by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic, institutional support MZE-RO0418. ZS was supported by an internal grant from Palacký University (IGA_PrF_2019_004). Research was conducted under permit no. OP 1264/2018.

Citation

Sochorová Z, Döbbeler P, Sochor M, van Rooy J (2019) Octospora conidiophora (Pyronemataceae) – a new species from South Africa and the first report of anamorph in bryophilous Pezizales. MycoKeys 54: 49–76. https://doi.org/10.3897/mycokeys.54.34571

Funding Statement

Palacký University Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic

Supplementary materials

Supplementary material 1

This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.

Zuzana Sochorová, Peter Döbbeler, Michal Sochor, Jacques van Rooy

Table S1. Distance matrices (nucleotide difference) for each locus of Octosporaconidiophora agg. and several randomly selected taxa

Data type: molecular data

mycokeys-54-049-s002.xls (25.5KB, xls)
Supplementary material 2

This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.

Zuzana Sochorová, Peter Döbbeler, Michal Sochor, Jacques van Rooy

Figure S1. Bayesian phylogeny inference based on single-locus analyses

Data type: phylogenetic tree

Explanation note: Bayesian posterior probability are shown above branches.

mycokeys-54-049-s002.xls (25.5KB, xls)

References

  1. Alvarado P, Cabero J, Moreno G, Bratek Z, Van Vooren N, Kaounas V, Konstantinidis G, Agnello C, Merényi Z, Smith ME, Vizzini A, Trappe JM. (2016) Phylogenetic overview of the genus Genea (Pezizales, Ascomycota) with an emphasis on European taxa. Mycologia 108(2): 441–456. 10.3852/15-199 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Araújo JPM, Evans HC, Geiser DM, Mackay WP, Hughes DP. (2015) Unravelling the diversity behind the Ophiocordycepsunilateralis (Ophiocordycipitaceae) complex: Three new species of zombie-ant fungi from the Brazilian Amazon. Phytotaxa 220(3): 224–238. 10.11646/phytotaxa.220.3.2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Beimforde C, Feldberg K, Nylinder S, Rikkinen J, Tuovila H, Dörfelt H, Gube M, Jackson DJ, Reitner J, Seyfullah LJ, Schmidt AR. (2014) Estimating the Phanerozoic history of the Ascomycota lineages: Combining fossil and molecular data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 78(1): 307–319. 10.1016/j.ympev.2014.04.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Benkert D. (1987) Beiträge zur Taxonomie der Gattung Lamprospora (Pezizales). Zeitschrift für Mykologie 53(2): 195–271. [Google Scholar]
  5. Benkert D. (2001) Neotypisierung von Lamprosporaminiata De Not. (Ascomycetes, Pezizales) und die Problematik des ‘Lamprosporaminiata-Komplexes’. Micologia 2000: 47–61. [Google Scholar]
  6. Berthet P. (1964a) Formes conidiennes de divers Discomycètes. Bulletin de la Société mycologique de France 80: 125–149. [Google Scholar]
  7. Berthet P. (1964b) Essai biotaxinomique sur les Discomycètes. Thesis. University of Lyon, 158 pp.
  8. Bonuso E, Zambonelli A, Bergemann SE, Iotti M, Garbelotto M. (2010) Multilocus phylogenetic and coalescent analyses identify two cryptic species in the Italian bianchetto truffle, Tuberborchii Vittad. Conservation Genetics 11(4): 1453–1466. 10.1007/s10592-009-9972-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bouckaert R, Heled J, Kühnert D, Vaughan T, Wu CH, Xie D, Suchard MA, Rambaut A, Drummond AJ. (2014) BEAST 2: A software platform for Bayesian evolutionary analysis. PLoS Computational Biology 10(4): 1–6. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003537 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Buyck B, Olariaga I, Justice J, Lewis D, Roody W, Hofstetter V. (2016) The dilemma of species recognition in the field when sequence data are not in phase with phenotypic variability. Cryptogamie, Mycologie 37(3): 367–389. 10.7872/crym/v37.iss3.2016.367 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Câmara PEAS, Van Rooy J, Carvalho Silva M, Magill RE. (2019) A revision of the family Sematophyllaceae (Bryophyta) in southern Africa. Acta Musei Silesiae, Scientiae Naturales 68: 147–164 (in press). 10.2478/cszma-2019-0015 [DOI]
  12. Conway KE. (1975) Ascocarp ontogeny and imperfect state of Thecotheus (Pezizales, Ascomycetes). Mycologia 67(2): 241–252. 10.1080/00275514.1975.12019746 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Davidson RW. (1950) Urnulacraterium is possibly the perfect stage of Strumellacoryneoidea Mycologia 42(6): 735–742. 10.1080/00275514.1950.12017876 [DOI]
  14. Descals E, Webster J. (1978) Miladinalechithina (Pezizales), the ascigerous state of Actinosporamegalospora. Transactions of the British Mycological Society 70(3): 466–472. 10.1016/S0007-1536(78)80150-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Döbbeler P. (1980) Untersuchungen an moosparasitischen Pezizales aus der Verwandtschaft von Octospora. Nova Hedwigia 31(4): 817–864. [Google Scholar]
  16. Döbbeler P. (1997) Biodiversity of bryophilous ascomycetes. Biodiversity and Conservation 6(5): 721–738. 10.1023/A:1018370304090 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Doyle JJ, Doyle JL. (1987) A rapid DNA isolation procedure for small quantities of fresh leaf tissue. Phytochemical Bulletin 19: 11–15. [Google Scholar]
  18. Egertová Z, Döbbeler P, Sochor M. (2018) Octosporopsiserinacea and Octosporakelabitiana (Pezizales) – two new hepaticolous ascomycetes from Borneo. Mycological Progress 17(1–2): 103–113. 10.1007/s11557-017-1354-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Egger KN. (1984) Pyropyxis, a new pyrophilous operculate discomycete with a Dichobotrys anamorph. Canadian Journal of Botany 62(4): 705–708. 10.1139/b84-103 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Ferdman Y, Sitrit Y, Li Y-F, Roth-Bejerano N, Kagan-Zur V. (2009) Cryptic species in the Terfeziaboudieri complex. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek International Journal 95(4): 351–362. 10.1007/s10482-009-9321-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Filippova N, Bulyonkova T, Lindemann U. (2016) New records of two pyrophilous ascomycetes from Siberia: Pyropyxisrubra and Rhodotarzettarosea. Ascomycete. org 8(4): 119–126. 10.25664/art-0181 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Flynn T, Miller OK. (1990) Biosystematics of Agrocybemolesta and sibling species allied to Agrocybepraecox in North America and Europe. Mycological Research 94(8): 1103–1110. 10.1016/s0953-7562(09)81341-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Haelewaters D, De Kesel A, Pfister DH. (2018) Integrative taxonomy reveals hidden species within a common fungal parasite of ladybirds. Scientific Reports 8(1): 15966 10.1038/s41598-018-34319-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hansen K, Perry BA, Dranginis AW, Pfister DH. (2013) A phylogeny of the highly diverse cup-fungus family Pyronemataceae (Pezizomycetes, Ascomycota) clarifies relationships and evolution of selected life history traits. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 67(2): 311–335. 10.1016/j.ympev.2013.01.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Harrington FA. (1990) Sarcoscypha in North America (Pezizales, Sarcoscyphaceae). Mycotaxon 38: 417–458. [Google Scholar]
  26. Healy R, Hobart C, Tocci GE, Bóna L, Merényi Z, Paz Conde A, Smith ME. (2015) Fun with the discomycetes: revisiting collections of Korf’s anamorphic Pezizales and Thaxter’s New England truffles leads to a connection between forms and the description of two new truffle species: Pachyphlodespfisteri and P.nemoralis. Ascomycete. org 7(6): 357–366. 10.25664/art-0160 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hennebert G. (1973) Botrytis and Botrytis-like genera. Persoonia 7(2): 183–204. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hibbett DS, Ohman A, Glotzer D, Nuhn M, Kirk P, Nilsson RH. (2011) Progress in molecular and morphological taxon discovery in Fungi and options for formal classification of environmental sequences. Fungal Biology Reviews 25(1): 38–47. 10.1016/j.fbr.2011.01.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hughes SJ. (1951) Studies on microfungi IX. Calcarisporium, Verticicladium and Hansfordia (gen. nov.). Mycological Papers 43: 3–25. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kendrick WB. (1979) The whole fungus. The sexual-asexual synthesis. National Museum of Natural Sciences and National Museums of Canada, Ottawa.
  31. Korf PR. (1958) Japanese discomycetes notes I–VIII. Science reports of the Yokohama National University. Section II, 7: 7–35. [Google Scholar]
  32. Korhonen A, Seelan JSS, Miettinen O. (2018) Cryptic species diversity in polypores: the Skeletocutisnivea species complex. MycoKeys 36: 45–82. 10.3897/mycokeys.36.27002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lanfear R, Frandsen PB, Wright AM, Senfeld T, Calcott B. (2017) PartitionFinder 2: New methods for selecting partitioned models of evolution for molecular and morphological phylogenetic analyses. Molecular Biology and Evolution 34(3): 772–773. 10.1093/molbev/msw260 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Leacock PR, Riddell J, Wilson AW, Zhang R, Ning C, Mueller GM. (2016) Cantharelluschicagoensis sp. nov. is supported by molecular and morphological analysis as a new yellow chanterelle in midwestern United States. Mycologia 108(4): 765–772. 10.3852/15-230. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Leliaert F, Verbruggen H, Vanormelingen P, Steen F, López-Bautista JM, Zuccarello GC, De Clerck O. (2014) DNA-based species delimitation in algae. European Journal of Phycology 49(2): 179–196. 10.1080/09670262.2014.904524 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Lindemann U, Vega M, Richter T, Alvarado P. (2014) Octosporopsisnicolai – a mysterious member of the Pyronemataceae. Zeitschrift für Mykologie 80(2): 565–592. [Google Scholar]
  37. Lindemann U. (2013) Beiträge zur Erforschung der Pilzflora Äthiopiens. Operculate Discomyceten, Teil 1. Ascomycete. org 5(3): 97–103. 10.25664/art-0084 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Magill RE. (1981) Flora of Southern Africa: Bryophyta Part 1 Mosses. Fascicle 1 Sphagnaceae-Grimmiaceae. Botanical Research Institute, South Africa.
  39. Moravec J. (1972) One interesting collection of operculate discomycete from Cairo (Egypt). Česká Mykologie 26(3): 138–140. [Google Scholar]
  40. Moravec J. (1997) [1996]. Fungi of the Kilimanjaro. II. Octosporakilimanjarensis sp. nov., a new species of the section Neottiellae (Discomycetes, Pezizales). Czech Mycology 49(3–4): 149–161. [Google Scholar]
  41. Nguyen NH, Landeros F, Garibay-Orijel R, Hansen L, Vellinga EC. (2013) The Helvellalacunosa species complex in western North America: cryptic species, misapplied names and parasites. Mycologia 105(5): 1275–1286. 10.3852/12-391 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. O’Donnell K, Rooney AP, Mills GL, Kuo M, Weber NS, Rehner SA. (2011) Phylogeny and historical biogeography of true morels (Morchella) reveals an early Cretaceous origin and high continental endemism and provincialism in the Holarctic. Fungal Genetics and Biology 48(3): 252–265. 10.1016/j.fgb.2010.09.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. O’Shea BJ. (2006) Checklist of the mosses of sub-Saharan Africa (version 5, 12/06). Tropical Bryology Research Reports 6: 1–252. [Google Scholar]
  44. Öpik M, Vanatoa A, Vanatoa E, Moora M, Davison J, Kalwij JM, Reier U, Zobel M. (2010) The online database Maarj AM reveals global and ecosystemic distribution patterns in arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (Glomeromycota). New Phytologist 188(1): 223–241. 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03334.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Paal J, Kullman B, Huijser HA. (1998) Multivariate analysis of the Scutelliniaumbrorum complex (Pezizales, Ascomycetes) from five ecotopes in the Netherlands. Persoonia 16(4): 491–512. [Google Scholar]
  46. Paden JW. (1967) The conidial state of Pezizabrunneoatra. Mycologia 59(5): 932–934. 10.2307/3757207 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Paden JW. (1972) Imperfect states and the taxonomy of the Pezizales. Persoonia 6(4): 405–414. [Google Scholar]
  48. Paden JW. (1975) Ascospore germination, growth in culture, and imperfect spore formation in Cookeinasulcipes and Phillipsiacrispata. Canadian Journal of Botany 53(1): 56–61. 10.1139/b75-008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Paden JW, Sutherland JR, Woods TAD. (1978) Caloscyphafulgens (Ascomycetidae, Pezizales): the perfect state of the conifer seed pathogen Geniculodendronpyriforme (Deuteromycotina, Hyphomycetes). Canadian Journal of Botany 56(19): 2375–2379. 10.1139/b78-289 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Perry BA, Hansen K, Pfister DH. (2007) A phylogenetic overview of the family Pyronemataceae (Ascomycota, Pezizales). Mycological Research 111(5): 549–571. 10.1016/j.mycres.2007.03.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Pfister DH. (1973) Caribbean Discomycetes 3. Ascospore germination and growth in culture of Nanoscyphatetraspora (Pezizales, Sarcoscyphineae). Mycologia 65(4): 952–956. 10.2307/3758534 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Rambaut A, Drummond AJ, Xie D, Baele G, Suchard MA. (2018) Posterior summarization in Bayesian phylogenetics using Tracer 1.7. Systematic Biology 67(5): 901–904. 10.1093/sysbio/syy032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. 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(1): 84–98. 10.1080/15572536.2006.11832842 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Ronquist F, Teslenko M, van der Mark P, Ayres DL, Darling A, Höhna S, Larget B, Liu L, Suchard MA, Huelsenbeck JP. (2012) MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Systematic Biology 61(3): 539–542. 10.1093/sysbio/sys029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Seaver FJ. (1914) A preliminary study of the genus Lamprospora. Mycologia 6(1): 5–24. 10.1080/00275514.1914.12020943 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Seifert KA, Morgan-Jones G, Gams W, Kendrick B. (2011) The genera of Hyphomycetes. CBS Biodiversity Series 9. Utrecht, CBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre.
  57. Schumacher TK. (1993) Studies in arctic and alpine Lamprospora species. Sydowia 45(2): 307–337. [Google Scholar]
  58. Skrede I, Carlsen T, Schumacher T. (2017) A synopsis of the saddle fungi (Helvella: Ascomycota) in Europe – species delimitation, taxonomy and typification. Persoonia 39: 201–253. 10.3767/persoonia.2017.39.09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Smith ME, Trappe JM, Rizzo DM. (2006) Genea, Genabea and Gilkeya gen. nov.: ascomata and ectomycorrhiza formation in a Quercus woodland. Mycologia 98(5): 699–716. 10.1080/15572536.2006.11832642 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Sprague R. (1948) Some leafspot fungi on western Gramineae – II. Mycologia. 40(2): 177–193. 10.1080/00275514.1948.12017698 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Taşkın H, Doğan HH, Büyükalaca S, Clowez P, Moreau PA, O’Donnell K. (2016) Four new morel (Morchella) species in the elata subclade (M.sect.Distantes) from Turkey. Mycotaxon 131(2): 467–482. 10.5248/131.467 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Thines M, Crous PW, Aime MC, Aoki T, Cai L, Hyde KD, Miller AN, Zhang N, Stadler M. (2018) Ten reasons why a sequence-based nomenclature is not useful for fungi anytime soon. IMA Fungus 9(1): 177–183. 10.5598/imafungus.2018.09.01.11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Van Rooy J, Phephu N. (2016) Centres of moss diversity in southern Africa. Bryophyte Diversity and Evolution 38(1): 27–39. 10.11646/bde.38.1.3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Van Rooy J, Van Wyk AE. (2010) The bryofloristic regions of southern Africa. Journal of Bryology 32(2): 80–91. 10.1179/037366810X12578498136039 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Van Rooy J, Van Wyk AE. (2011) The bryofloristic elements of southern Africa. Journal of Bryology 33(1): 17–29. 10.1179/1743282010Y.0000000007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Van Vooren N. (2016) Trichophaeadougoudii sp. nov. (Pezizales), un nouveau discomycète de l’étage alpin. Ascomycete.org 8(5): 227–234. 10.25664/art-0190 [DOI]
  67. Vilgalys R, Hester M. (1990) Rapid genetic identification and mapping of enzymatically amplified ribosomal DNA from several Cryptococcus species. Journal of Bacteriology 172(8): 4238–4246. 10.1128/jb.172.8.4238-4246.1990 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Wang XH, Huhtinen S, Hansen K. (2016) Multilocus phylogenetic and coalescent-based methods reveal dilemma in generic limits, cryptic species, and a prevalent intercontinental disjunct distribution in Geopyxis (Pyronemataceae s. l., Pezizomycetes). Mycologia 108(6): 1189–1215. 10.3852/16-100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Warcup JH, Talbot PHB. (1989) Muciturbo: A new genus of hypogeous ectomycorrhizal Ascomycetes. Mycological Research 92(1): 95–100. 10.1016/S0953-7562(89)80101-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. White TJ, Bruns T, Lee S, Taylor JW. (1990) Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In: Innis MA, Gelfand DH, Sninsky JJ, White TJ. (Eds) PCR Protocols: A Guide to Methods and Applications.Academic Press, New York, 315–322. 10.1016/B978-0-12-372180-8.50042-1 [DOI]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

XML Treatment for Octospora conidiophora
mycokeys.54.34571-treatment1.xml (40.7KB, xml)
Supplementary material 1

This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.

Zuzana Sochorová, Peter Döbbeler, Michal Sochor, Jacques van Rooy

Table S1. Distance matrices (nucleotide difference) for each locus of Octosporaconidiophora agg. and several randomly selected taxa

Data type: molecular data

mycokeys-54-049-s002.xls (25.5KB, xls)
Supplementary material 2

This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.

Zuzana Sochorová, Peter Döbbeler, Michal Sochor, Jacques van Rooy

Figure S1. Bayesian phylogeny inference based on single-locus analyses

Data type: phylogenetic tree

Explanation note: Bayesian posterior probability are shown above branches.

mycokeys-54-049-s002.xls (25.5KB, xls)

Articles from MycoKeys are provided here courtesy of Pensoft Publishers

RESOURCES