Bonsoir Gilbert,
R echinophila is known to occur on Q. cerris, I do remember a finding in 2008 in south Moravia. White in 1941 mentions a findings in Germany by Rehm and von Höhnel.
It is not regarded as a seperate variety.
Amitiés,
Stip

Grand merci Stip
Gilbert

Hoi together

I know a find on Qu. cerris from Vienna, but I saw it only very overmature.
I only wonder why R. echinophila does not go on other Quercus species, though I have seen two on Quercus robur or petraea cupules but only in dry state.

Zotto

Bonsoir Zotto
Jamais vu non plus sur d'autres espèces de chêne.
Vielen Dank
Gilbert

Hi Zotto,
no idea why, perhaps it likes 'hairy' cupules more :-)
Vienna is only 60 km from Valtice, the Moravian collection site

Stip

Bonjour, 

Franz von Höhnel écrivit en 1917 (Fragmente zur Mykologie 1021): 

"Die Rutstroemia echinophila (Bull.) v. H. ist bisher nur auf den Fruchthüllen von Castanea vesca gefunden worden. Im Wiener Walde ist dieselbe jedoch gar nicht selten auf den faulenden Fruchtbechern von Quercus Cerris, vollkommen mit der Form auf Castanea übereinstimmend."

voir aussi Zehfuss in Schweiz. Zschr. Pilzk. 68 (9-10), 1990: 182ff.

Moi, je l'a trouvé en Maurerwald (pas loin de Vienne) sur cupules de Q. cerris.

Amitiés
Till

Merci Till!
nevertheless, these fungi should be treated with modern methods, sometimes morphologically extremely similar collections turned out to be different and to show some host specificity.

But there are data available in Genbank about echinophila, and they support that samples on Quercus are conspecific with those on Castanea:

Two strains from Holland are identical in the ITS region (one from Castanea cupules KF545333, the other from Quercus castaneifolia cupules KF545332). A third deviates by 1 nt and is an "uncultured fungus" from Castanea from Italy (EF040838).

Zotto

Si quelqu'un désire du matériel pour faire la biomol, j'en ai fait sècher, il suffit de me demander. J'enverrai avec plaisir
gilbert

Bonjour,
Au fait, Lanzia ou Rutstroemia ?
Merci
Gilbert

I prefer Rutstroemia and use Lanzia only for a few more exotic species with a rather low lipid content in the spores.

Merci Zotto.
Je ne voyais pas bien les caractères du genre Lazia dans cette espèce d'où ma question
Gilbert

... and the authors of this paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4329328/pdf/ima-5-2-473.pdf seem to prefer Sclerotinia e.
However, their strain CBS 111548 is listed in GenBank as Rutstroemia.

Regards
Martin

Merci_ Martin.
Pas toujours facile d'y voir clair....
Gilbert

Hi Martin & Gilbert,

thanks for this weird link which I did not know. It shows to me that unspecialized workers on all groups of fungi do not even argue for their choice of a genus. Why the hell did they not use at least Lanzia according to Species Fungorum?

I attach here an ITS tree from our paper Johnston et al. 2014. It shows that Rutstroemia falls in two groups, for which I so far could not find a morphological basis. We have there also a few Lanzia species that might indeed deserve a genus of their own. The type of Lanzia was apparently never recollected and deserves morphological restudy as well as sequencing.

Sclerotinia is not in this tree, but it falls close to Monilinia and Encoelia fascicularis, which is genetically and also morphologically more a Sclerotinia than R. echinophila is.

The full genome sequence of this R. echinophila (CBS 111548) has almost the same CBS number as the one I mentioned (CBS 111549), both are from Castanea cupules by Gerard Verkley and I thought they are trustworthy. However, genetically their ITS is very different! The ITS is indeed close to Sclerotinia, Botryotinia and Ciboria americana. The latter would explain this misidentification, but the distance is 3%. So what CBS 111548 actually is remains unclear.

Zotto

Hi Zotto,

I was surprised that the genus affiliation is not even discussed...

Regards
Martin

I wonder whether it is possible to pick out the rDNA from such big file. Several gene regions are separately uploaded. Besides ITS I tested a Blast of the SSU and it falls more close to Rutstroemia, though here the deviations are few within the sclerotiniaceous fungi. The authors have uploaded the SSU twice, but not the LSU.

All in all I supect that this strain represents Ciboria americana rather than R. echinophila. Their photo shows a fungus of 1-2 mm diam. which fits better to this species than to the Rutstroemia.