I think you should send the specimen to me for sequencing... ;o)

Cheers,
Andy

OK Andy,

Could you give me your postal address ?

Best regards,

Bernard

Could it be that Persoon and Albertini & Schweinitz described the same fungus?

What perfectly matches Bernard's fungus I consider as very common in Europe, and I always identifided it as E. strigosa (earlier Lasiosphaeria). See my folder in www.in-vivo-veritas.de.

E. canescens in Miller et al. (2014 Fig. 2) I consider conspecific.

In GenBank I find only 4 sequences of E. canescens. Is it possible to know in which country they were collected?

Zotto

Dr. Andrew Miller
University of Illinois
Illinois Natural History Survey
1816 South Oak Street
Champaign, IL 61820-6970  USA
phone: (217) 244-0439

Send as:  DRIED HERBARIUM SPECIMENS, NO COMMERCIAL VALUE

E. canescens has shorter ascospores and is quite rare, while E. strigosa has longer ascospores and is very common.  Molecular data support the recognition of these two species as disctinct and separate species.

Cheers,
Andy

Hi Bernard
could you please send me a pdf of your paper in Sterbeeckia 2009?
Thanks
Zotto

Thanks Bernard.  I already have genetic data to prove this.
Your 2016 paper states this:
21-28(32)µm in E. canescens vs. 30-38µm in E. strigosa

Until recently, the literature has confused E. canescens as the longer spored species and forgot about E. strigosa.

Best,
Andy

thanks, Bernard!

It is always super if the papers are shared with everybody :-)

Best regards, Lothar

Thanks! So your E. canescens in 2008 is now E. curvatispora. A pity that the guttule pattern of the living spores is not known in that species.

Your papers do not include the spore size of the two similar species? - Oh sorry, now I see!

I remember to have earlier tried to separate the two species but did not succeed. Here is a list of measurements of 7 samples . When following Bernard's key , 6036 is clearly canescens, but otherwise I am not sure. 1540 and 2749 could as well be separated from the remaining by extraordinarily long spores, but always some collections overlap with others.

It may well be that there exist sharp genetical differences, but my impression is that it would then be hardly possible to identify these cryptoc taxa merely by morphology.


H.B. 1540 (1976): *39-45/6-7.5 µm +H2O 35-46 x 6.5-8.3 µm (Reynoutria stems)
H.B. 1568 (1975): *30-36/5,5-6 µm (Fraxinus wood)
H.B. 2748 (1975): †36-43/5,5-6 µm (Fagus wood)
H.B. 4648 (1992): *33-39/5,6-6,2 µm (Prunus bark)
H.B. 6036 (1998): *25-30/5,5-5,8 µm (Salix wood)
H.B. 8248 (2006): *29-37 x 5.2-5.6 µm, brownish *34-38 x 6-6.5 µm (Salix wood)
15.III.1975: *30-39(42)/5,5-6(6,5) µm (Carpinus ?wood)

Well, Zotto, send me your specimens and I will sequence them and let you know.  I believe you have E. strigosa for all except 6063, which may be E. canescens.

Cheers,
Andy

The same despite the large differences in spore size?
But these samples are very old, 20-40 years, except for one (12 years). Did you succeed with so old perithecia?

Yes, sometimes.  It depends more on how the specimen was dried... low heat and slow is best.

Andy

Helotiales usually do not work anymore after 10-20 years. I never apply heat for drying.

Echinosphaeria is in the Sordariomycetes.  Your specimens should be fine.

I have preserved all except for 1568 and the last one. Some of them are illustrated here
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5SeyOEkxxZhOXZNOVluSkNDT2s

Of course I know the class :-)  Perhaps you need to apply next generation sequencing? This was successful for Saccardo specimens in Pezizales but not in Helotiales (Forin et al. 2018).

No, Sanger sequencing works just fine with a modified DNA extraction.  I just got sequences from small fragments from a Gyromitra from 1950.  DNA in fungal tissues preserve well up to ~30 years and can be successfully extracted for many taxa up to ~100 years old.  Next-gen sequencing is neccessary for specimens ~100-200 years old.

hello foks

curvatispora/canescens

The material of Lasiosphaeria canescens (Echinosphaeria) in Fries Scleromycetes (C copy) has the characters of E. curvatispora: spores boomerang-shaped, 17.7-20.9 x 4-4.8(-5.6) µm. Are the names lectotypified or otherwise typified?

cheers
Thomas

Hi Andrew,

I just posted samples of Echinosphaeria canescens. I hope that the parcels will not be lost and that you will receive it in good condition.

In advance thank you for following your analysis!

Best regards,

Bernard

Thanks Bernard!  I am currently 10 out of 10 in the past 3 years for successfully receiving specimens from Europe.

Cheers,
Andy