05-07-2025 12:38
Åge OterhalsI found this pyrenomycetous fungi in pine forest o
02-07-2025 18:45
Elisabeth StöckliBonsoir,Sur feuilles d'Osmunda regalis (Saulaie),
04-07-2025 20:12
Josep Torres
Hello.A fungus growing on the surface of a trunk o
20-06-2025 08:33
Josep Torres
Hello.Small, blackish, mucronated surface grains s
28-06-2025 16:00
Josep Torres
Hello.A tiny fungus shaped like globose black grai
04-07-2025 12:43
Castillo Joseba
me mandan el material seco de Galicia (España)
03-07-2025 18:40
Castillo Joseba
me mandas el material seco de Galicia (España) re
Trimmatostroma - taxonomic position
Chris Yeates,
18-08-2023 19:01
Bonsoir tous
Mycobank and Index Fungorum both place this genus in the Helotiales, yet Genbank points to Mycosphaerellales, so clearly something odd is happening.
If you look at this collection on Genbank: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/EU019299.1 it clearly places Trimmatostroma in Mycosphaerellales. And yet it cites a related paper in Studies in Mycology 58 pp. 1-32 (2007) by Crous et al. "Mycosphaerella is polyphyletic" which contains the statement "the type species of the genus Trimmatostroma Corda, namely T. salicis Corda, as well as T. betulinum (Corda) S. Hughes, are allied (99 % bootstrap support) with the Dermateaceae (Helotiales)".
I find it hard to square this circle. Suggestions welcome.
Cordaliement, Chris
Hans-Otto Baral,
18-08-2023 21:00
Re : Trimmatostroma - taxonomic position
I checled these three below, they all fall in Mollisia.
MK584996 Trimmatostroma salicis
=EU019300 Trimmatostroma salicis
which match an unpublished one by Guy Marson on Salix.
Closely related to T. salicis:
EU019299 Trimmatostroma betulinum
= MK584993 Trimmatostroma betulinum
Also not far from the above is
MZ571405 Trimmatostroma on Betula (Guy)
= AY354269 Mollisia sp. olrim132 (Lithuania, Betula pendula living stem)
Earlier Mollisia was treated in Dermateaceae, now in Mollisiaceae.
Zotto
Chris Yeates,
19-08-2023 12:30
Re : Trimmatostroma - taxonomic position
Thanks Zotto - that is exactly how I have interpreted the position, based on the Stud. Mycol. paper.
But I don't understand Genbank's repeated placement in Mycosphaerellales - presumably people are sequencing different strains that are far from the type material. I would have thought they would have better "checks and balances".
It again goes to show that using any of the databases - be it Index Fungorum, Mycobank, Genbank etc. they cannot be treated as gospel . . .
Chris
Hans-Otto Baral,
19-08-2023 13:59
Re : Trimmatostroma - taxonomic position
When you look at the many taxa of Trimmatostroma in IF, you can see that some were combined into pyrenocarpous genera. This transfer from an originally anamorphic to a teleomorphic genus is quite frequent today, since 1F1N and the recommendation and conservation papers. IF is not adherent to Trimmatostroma in an antiquated sense, it only refers to the current nomenclatural synonym (binomial). So it seems nobody continues to use Trimmatostroma in the sense of a pyrenomycetous anamorph. The type of the genus is T. salicis and this can be considered as a Mollisia, though without knowing its perfect state as far as I know. I suppose some species described in Trimmatostroma are not yet clarified genetically.