Accès membres

Mot de passe perdu? S'inscrire

07-02-2025 20:25

Ascolichen or lichenicolous fungus?
Enrique Rubio Enrique Rubio

Dear all.Ascomata pheritecioid, KOH-negative, flas

07-02-2025 22:28

Hysterobrevium smilacis
Yanick BOULANGER

BonsoirPetit pyrénomycètes d'environ 1 mm sur bo

07-02-2025 17:48

Octospora coccinea ?
Vasileios Kaounas Vasileios Kaounas

asci 170-200 x 20-22 ?m spores 21.9 [22.9 ; 23.4]

06-02-2025 18:11

Scutellinia uliginosa
Zuzana Sochorová (Egertová) Zuzana Sochorová (Egertová)

Hello, while digging in my fungarium, I found an

06-02-2025 06:25

Lasiobelonium - which one?
Bharati Mandapati

Hi All, I would love some help with this Lasiobel

06-02-2025 19:28

Nectria sp?
Rot Bojan

Hello!On a fallen twig (possibly Corylus) I found

05-02-2025 04:38

Thyronectria on unknown hardwood branch
Ethan Crenson

Hi all, Found by a friend last Saturday in Staten

05-02-2025 18:40

Dendrostilbella smaragdina?
Marc Detollenaere Marc Detollenaere

On rotten wood of Pinus, I found some green synne

05-02-2025 11:50

On salix bark
Margot en Geert Vullings

On the inside of Salix bark we found white rosette

29-01-2025 18:12

En Buxus
Blasco Rafael Blasco Rafael

Hola, he encontrado estos pequeños Ascos liqueniz

« < 1 2 3 4 5 > »
Lasiobelonium - which one?
Bharati Mandapati, 06-02-2025 06:25
Hi All,

I would love some help with this Lasiobelonium – based on Raitviir 1980 it could be L. subflavidum BUT there are some spores with no septation (perhaps younger ones), though there are 3-septate spores, some look like there are 1 or 2 septations. Picking the other choice at (9) in Raitviir leads me to species that do not match in other respects. I did note that the photographs for the L. subflavidum collections in Baral's excellent set of images also seems to have this type of variation in spores. My detailed notes (see notes field), photos (including photomicrography) and references consulted are at https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/260777677

Thanks in advance!


Bharati


Berkeley, CA, USA
Hans-Otto Baral, 06-02-2025 08:26
Hans-Otto Baral
Re : Lasiobelonium - which one?
Hi

this is a very common error, apparently impossible to erase. Not less mature but alive! 

You have plenty of ejected living spores, which are fully mature, as I defined the term mature (1992).

The septum is only not visible because of the many guttules. You must simply add MLZ or another killing agent that masks the LBs to the water mount, then you see pretty well the septum.

It seems to me that the mature spores are only 1-septate and get 3-septate only when overmature. But this you can find out when testing the numerous ejected spores with MLZ.

I am not sure why your first micro image shows dead elements only, although being in water. I suspect pressure or drying and rewetting´as reason?

Your ascus measurements sound like referring to dead asci, considering the low width. I see no living ascus in your pics.

The spores are quite large, so L. lonicerae is impossible.

Zotto
Bharati Mandapati, 06-02-2025 20:12
Re : Lasiobelonium - which one?
Hi Zotto,

Thanks for the quick and helpful reply! I am an amateur beginner with asco microscopy and have a LOT to learn.

>"this is a very common error, apparently impossible to erase. Not less mature but alive!
>You have plenty of ejected living spores, which are fully mature, as I defined the term mature (1992).

>The septum is only not visible because of the many guttules. You must simply add MLZ or another killing agent that masks the LBs to the water mount, then you see pretty well the septum."

Ah! Just downloaded the 1992 paper – thanks for flagging it.

>"It seems to me that the mature spores are only 1-septate and get 3-septate only when overmature. But >this you can find out when testing the numerous ejected spores with MLZ."


Will do.


>"I am not sure why your first micro image shows dead elements only, although being in water. I suspect pressure or drying and rewetting´as reason?
>Your ascus measurements sound like referring to dead asci, considering the low width. I see no living ascus in your pics."


Pressure is what I suspect. I will review my current collection of photos (I have more and of different mounts) and better yet make a new set of slides after I read the 1992 paper.


>"The spores are quite large, so L. lonicerae is impossible."


 Noted. Based on the Raitviir key I get from 1-->2-->3-->9 which would rule out L. lonicerae – am I missing something again?


Bharati

Hans-Otto Baral, 06-02-2025 20:44
Hans-Otto Baral
Re : Lasiobelonium - which one?
L. subflavidum is a really good option. I saw it only once, in Tenerife
Bharati Mandapati, 06-02-2025 20:54
Re : Lasiobelonium - which one?
>"L. subflavidum is a really good option. I saw it only once, in Tenerife"

Thanks again, Zotto!  That is where I landed but for my doubts (see my first post here) but obviously I have MUCH to learn!

As I was checking to see whether there are records of L. subflavidum in the US, I found this wonderful correspondence between Lee Bonar and Dennis regarding specimens from California (in fact Bonar's collection was originally stored here in the Berkeley herbarium) - of course I don't know whether the species concept from that time is the same as now. https://www.gbif.org/tools/zoom/simple.html?src=//api.gbif.org/v1/image/cache/occurrence/4868707169/media/088eecbda47edd670796d23c61e06e00
Hans-Otto Baral, 06-02-2025 21:15
Hans-Otto Baral
Re : Lasiobelonium - which one?
Ineresting. This is the question. I never went thoroughly into that species. But recently I collaborated on the new Outline (MYCOSPHERE 15(1): 5146–6239 (2024) www.mycosphere.org ISSN 2077 7019
Doi 10.5943/mycosphere/15/1/25) and copied an account by Peter Johnston which I found interesting:

Lasiobelonium (type L. subflavidum)

PRJ Outline: The type species of Lasiobelonium, L. subflavidum, and a species described from New Zealand as Dasyscyphus triseptatus, were placed in synonymy by Raitviir (1980) and this synonymy was accepted by Spooner (1987). Based on the description in Spooner (1987), a recent specimen from New Zealand (PDD 60106, https://scd.landcareresearch.co.nz/Specimen/PDD_60106) is morphologically typical of L. subflavidum. The multi-gene analysis of Johnston (2022) incorporates data from PDD 60106 and places Lasiobelonium in Solenopeziaceae sensu Johnston & Baschien (2020). This supports Johnston & Baschien (2020), an analysis where Lasiobelonium was represented by L. lonicerae rather than the type species.
Bharati Mandapati, 06-02-2025 21:49
Re : Lasiobelonium - which one?
Thanks Zotto. Sadly I don't have a copy of Spooner 1987 but I did note that all the records labeled L. subflavidum on Genbank seem to be from the Johnston collections and cultures and that the descriptions + photos are available here https://biotanz.landcareresearch.co.nz/scientific-names/1cb18cb4-36b9-11d5-9548-00d0592d548c

PS; what loci do you use when sequencing Solenopeziaceae?


Hans-Otto Baral, 06-02-2025 21:52
Hans-Otto Baral
Re : Lasiobelonium - which one?
As in other Helotiales: ITS and LSU D1-D2 or D1-D4
Bharati Mandapati, 07-02-2025 01:42
Re : Lasiobelonium - which one?
Got it.  Thanks again!