yes, it is Rhystidhysteron? rufulum

Zotto

Yes, R. rufulum.  I found this in eastern Brazil in 2010.  Interesting geographical distribution assuming it is all one species.

Andy

The paper by Murillo et al. 2009 presents 4 very clear clades within R. rufulum, which correspond to some differences in ascus and ascospore size (see below, ascus data probably from dead asci).

Regrettably, only two of them were figured, one of which being stated as neotype of R. rufulum. No names were given to the remaining three, though the molecular data strongly support different species, and I cannot see which clade represents the neotype.

If anybody has this paper as pdf (with word search option) I would be grateful, because it would then be easier to understand.

Zotto

Thanks, Alain! If the words are properly found, the word neotype appears only once in the legend, not in the main text. Now I also understand that diferent hymenial colours are diagnostic.

Zotto

Dr.Eric W.A. Boehm, Hysteriaceae expert, confirm is R. rufulum,. A detailed description of this genus can be found in: 

http://www.eboehm.com/id62.html

Yes, but the article by Murillo suggests that different species hide behind H. rufulum, which are apparently undescribed.

For your specimen Clade III would fit with spore size and hymenial colour.

Both papers, Murillo et al and Boehm pubished in 2009. Murillo et al included this genera in Patellariaceae, but Bohem not agree. "Boehm et al. (2009) were the first to provide sequence data indicating that Rhytidhysteron does not lie within the Patellariaceae. Although initially based on only a single isolate of R. rufulum (CBS 306.38), the genus was tentatively noted to be associated with the Hysteriaceae. In the current study, a total of eight isolates, representing three species, clearly indicates that that the genus Rhytidhysteron belongs to the family Hysteriaceae, and not to the Patellariaceae, the latter defined in this study to include Hysteropatella clavispora (CBS 247.34), Hp. elliptica (CBS 935.97), and Patellaria atrata (CBS 958.97).

About the Clades, i agree with you, this specimen belongs to Clade III of Murillo. But i think the clades are small mutations in color, metabolism, etc. not a taxonomic criteria or  species level differentiation.

I am not sure about that, I believe more in different species. The spore size differences are quite strong, and the genetic data seem to be convincing. These fungi should be studied in more detail, the pigments are apparently also chemically different. There are similar differences in Xylariaceae, for example.

Yes, the relation to the Hysteriales is obvious from this molecular study.

Zotto