Table 2.

List of phylogenetic studies on Pleosporales

Year	Author(s)	Loci used	Target fungi	General conclusion
1998	Dong et al.	LSU, SSU	Leptosphaeriaceae, Pleosporaceae  and three other families	Leptosphaeriaceae is paraphyletic and  Pleosporaceae is monophyletic.
2000	Liew et al.	SSU	Pleosporales and Melanommatales	Pleosporales and Melanommatales are not  naturial groups.
2001	Lindemuth et al.	LSU, SSU, mtSSU	loculoascomycetes	Loculoascomycetes are not monophyletic.
2001	Lumbsch and  Lindemuth	LSU, SSU	Dothideomycetes	Presence of pseudoparaphyses is a major  character at order level classification
2002	Câmara et al.	ITS	Leptosphaeria and Phaeosphaeria	Accepted Leptosphaeria sensu stricto.
2006	Kodsueb et al.	LSU	Pleosporaceae	Wettsteinina should be excluded from the  Pleosporaceae.
2006	Kodsueb et al.	LSU	Tubeufiaceae	Tubeufiaceae is more closely related to the  Venturiaceae.
2006	Kruys et al.	LSU, SSU, mtSSU	coprophilous familes of  Pleosporales	coprophilous familes of Pleosporales form  phylogenetic monophyletic groups  respectively
2006	Schoch et al.	LSU, SSU, TEF1,  RPB2	Dothideomycetes	Proposed the subclasses  Pleosporomycetidae
2007	Pinnoi et al.	LSU, SSU	Pleosporales	phylogenetic relationships of different  families of Pleosporales, introduced a  new fungus-- Berkleasmium crunisia
2007	Wang et al.	LSU, SSU, RPB2	Massariosphaeria	Massariosphaeria is not monophyletic
2007	Winton et al.	LSU, SSU, ITS	Phaeocryptopus gaeumannii	Phaeocryptopus gaeumannii nested in  Dothideales.
2008a	Zhang et al.	LSU, SSU	Melanomma and Trematosphaeria	Melanomma and Trematosphaeria belong  to different families
2009	de Gruyter et al.	LSU, SSU;	Phoma and related genera	They are closely related with  Didymellaceae, Leptosphaeriaceae,  Phaeosphaeriaceae and Pleosporaceae
2009a	Zhang et al.	LSU, SSU, TEF1,  RPB1, RPB2	Pleosporales	Amniculicolaceae and Lentitheciaceae were  introduced, and Pleosporineae  recircumscribed.
2009	Mugambi and  Huhndorf	LSU, TEF1	Melanommataceae,  Lophiostomataceae	Recircumscribed Melanommataceae and  Lophiostomataceae, and reinstated  Hypsostromataceae.
2009	Nelsen et al.	LSU and mtSSU	lichenized Dothideomycetes	Pyrenocarpous lichens with bitunicate asci  are not monophyletic, but belong to at  least two classes (Dothideomycetes and  Erotiomycetes).
2009	Suetrong et al.	LSU, SSU, TEF1, RPB1	marine Dothideomycetes	Two new families are introduced  Aigialaceae and Morosphaeriaceae.
2009	Shearer et al.	LSU, SSU	freshwater Dothideomycetes	Freshwater Dothideomycetes are related to  terrestrial taxa and have adapted to  freshwater habitats numerous times.
2009	Tanaka et al.	LSU, SSU, TEF1, ITS, BT	bambusicolous Pleosporales	Introduced Tetraplosphaeriaceae with  Tetraploa-like anamorphs.
2009	Kruys and Wedin	ITS-nLSU, mtSSU rDNA  and β-tubulin	Sporormiaceae	Analyzed the inter-generic relationships as  well as evaluated the morphological sig-  nificance used in this family.
2010	Hirayama et al.	LSU, SSU	Massarina ingoldiana sensu lato	Massarina ingoldiana sensu lato is  polyphyletic, and separated into two  clades within Pleosporales.
2010	Aveskamp et al.	LSU, SSU, ITS and β-tubulin	Phoma and related genera within  Didymellaceae	Rejected current Boeremaean subdivision.
2010	de Gruyter et al.	LSU, SSU	Phoma and related genera within  Pleosporineae	Introduced Pyrenochaetopsis, Setophoma  and Neosetophoma and reinstated  Cucurbitariaceae within Pleosporineae