21-12-2024 09:08
Castillo Joseba
Me mandan el material seco de Galicia, recolecta
21-12-2024 12:45
Marc Detollenaere
Dear Forum,On naked wood of Fagus, I found some ha
17-12-2024 12:33
Lothar Krieglsteiner
this fluffy anamorph was repeatedly found on decid
20-12-2024 20:30
Bernard CLESSE
Bonsoir à toutes et tous,Pourriez-vous m'aider à
20-12-2024 00:01
Francois Guay
Hi, I found this species on incubated Fir needles
20-12-2024 20:34
Enrique Rubio
Perhaps some of you can help me identify this smal
20-12-2024 17:32
Louis DENYBonsoir forumTrouvé à Belfort, 400 m altitude, s
Bonjour à tous, Hi to all, I collected on burnt Pinus wood this Ciliolarina with a strong reddening reaction to bruising with the following micro features :
Ascus 40-44 x 6-7 , with croziers but no Iodine reaction (nor IKI or Mlz)
Spores fusiform with polar lbs, staining violet in CRB
many paraphyses with a verruculose end , homogenous vacuole staining blue-green in CRB
marginal hairs 20-30 x 4-6
These would match Ciliolarina chamaeleontina (Peck) Raitvir but for the lack of iodine reaction.
Would someone give a help ?
Amitiés
Michel
your spores have two rather large drops inside. Did you check, are they of vacuolar nature, i.e., do they disappear in KOH?
I suppose they are LBs, and I would suggest C. laetifica. Stip identified a collection from Mecklenburg (Torsten Richter) tentatively as laetifica (HB 8066). Also one by Guy Garcia (20.I.08) looks similar, and this even shows the reddish change when bruised.
Zotto
Si ça t'intéresse je peux t'envoyer les notes et photos de ma récolte.
Pour une meilleure recherche dans les archives du forum tu devrais corriger "Ciliolarinia" en "Ciliolarina"
Amitiés, Guy
Thank you Zotto for your answer.
Ther is no visible reaction with KOH on spore guttulation (= LBs)
Three collections of your dvd seem very close to mine (in File L. neglecta):
- JPP's 22159 . Jean Paul has drawn the very same type of spores, including ends shapes
- Your HB 8066
- Guy'collection
As for Stip's plate for C; laetifica aff. spores guttulation looks different (measurements too)
I have to read Huhtinen's paper . Amitiés
Michel
Oui, il s'agit bien de Ciciolarina, ok
Amitiés
Michel
Zotto
thank you, Michel, for presenting your collection! And thank you, Zotto, for your remarks about Michels collection!
I found just this species with very similar macroscopic and microscopic features several times in Berlin (Königsheide) on Pinus sylvestris. I thought of Ciliolarinia but I have until this evening no "full" name for my collections.
Best, Uwe
do you have any documentation? Because we collect them :-)
A very difficult genus....
Zotto
Tomorrow I'll mail to you directly.
Best, Uwe?
Your collection looks the same as HB 8066 which i think is laetifica too with exceptation of wider spores. I send you the article with emendation of laetifica and neglecta by Huhtinen. C. laetifica description is extended with IKI + larger asci and larger spores with higher oil content
my collection of laetifica had IKI violet VBs and is more grayish in drying
The plate of aff. laetifica i draw from a herbarium collection but what is in the same folder as 8066 i still think is neglecta
cheers,
Stip
check also the collection of Ingo Wagner
http://asco-sonneberg.de/pages/gallery/ciliolarina-euamyloid-smallspored-111120-01xs22261.php?
Here are some measurements:
Asci with croziers, biseriate, 35-40 x 5 µm, IKI-
Paraphyses: 2 µm broad, non-septate, without visible content
Spores: 6-7,5 x 2-2,5(-3) µm
Hairs warted, up to 5 µm broad
KOH not tested
The fruitbodies are reddening strongly when bruised
On Pinus sylvestris, Berlin, Koenigsheide, 18-1-2009
Dear Stip, could you send also to me Huthinen's paper? Thanx!
Best, Uwe
Zotto
Hi Uwe,
Merci pour ces images,
Spore shape and guttulation look similar .
Do you remember if the apothecia were violently reddening as well on slightest touch ?
Michel
I only remember the strongly reddening of the fruitbodies, but not whether it's on the "slightest touch" or not. Sorry.
Best, Uwe
Uwe
These loose ends keep bothering me, it is a difficult genus, yesterday I looked in my older collection plates where i found some drawings of what I determined at that time as Ciliolarina ligniseda (Velen.) Svrcek. In Raitviir 2004 this species is excluded because of a study of the type by R. Galan.
The description of this species by Svrcek mainly based upon his own recent collections is as followed:
C. ligniseda differs from related C. laricina in very small, biguttulate, aseptate spores 4-6,5-(7)x(1,5)2-3, small asci 20-45x5-7,5, as well as in the tendency of reddening (but this feature seems to be inconstant)
So this description and the linedrawing by Velenovsky he referrs at seems to fit the best for the taxon presented here by Michel and Uwe and the JPP 22159 (HB 8066 seems to fit also better to this concept) therefore I propose to refer to this taxon described as (sub)sessile sometimes reddening with (sub)fusoid, biguttulate spores and permanent IKI negative asci as "C. ligniseda sensu Svrcek" untill further information becomes available, mainly on IKI reactions of the apical pore.
The ligniseda linedrawings on the DVD (SBRH 268 & 329) should be excluded of this concept because of the lower oil content and less fusoid spores.
Cheers,
Stip
Here are the images of our spanish collection on Pinus radiata wood that fits exactly with the Michel's collection. The ascospores staining violet in Crb too, many paraphyses have verrucose tips and the asci IKI negative have croziers.
C. ligniseda too, this is excellent. I see you found the same occasionally granulate paraphysen tips as I did in last weekends collection, in my aerea there was a optimal growth condition for over a month (between 3-15 C) so I thougt this was of extreme long growth. What were your wether conditions?
Cheers,
Stip
how do you distinguisih between ligniseda and laetifica? I have placed Enrique's specimen in my laetfica folder. One thing is the big oil drops in the spores.
Zotto
I think this is a good question: how to distinguish between ligniseda and laetifica? The two original descriptions are so short and unclear!
Stip, the wether is from 2 to 17 positive degrees
jedenfalls die permanent negative asci and the spores seem to have a higher lipid content and are more fusoid shaped. I was re-evaluating licgniseda last weekend and think that the IKI negative part of the collections named laetifica is in fact ligniseda.
Stip
And do you think that the lipid content can vary so strongly? For instance
Ciliolarina ligniseda cf., SBRH329.JPG has only a few small polar LBs.
Ciliolarina ligniseda SBRH 152.JPG has bigger drops.
Now I see that one of my laetifica folders should carry the name:
laetifica cf. IKI+ pale, H+ Ölm.1
It contains only your drawing
Ciliolarina laetifica cf., 1.11.2000, SBRH 128.JPG
The only certain laetifica??
Zotto
as I stated already in this post 2 years ago SBRH 268 & 329 should be excluded from this species concept. SBRH 152 is the real one and SBRH 328 is indeed probably the only real laetifica (that should get a new name) But at this time I am not really sure what the real laetifica should be, ther seems to be many intermediate collections but still too little of them to get a real species concept.
The type of laetifica has high lipid content and IKI- asci as well as the type of ligniseda.
Stip
But with 328 you mean probably 329?
I must confess I am only a little wiser now and quite confused as before. ....
The reason for why you say that the two should be excluded from 152 I cannot see, they look to me quite similar, IKI- and H+, spores similar....
sorry for the confusion, it should be 128, the other two (268 & 329) excluded could represent an other taxon with lower lipid content in the spores.
Stip
Hope is surely be a powerful incentive.
Thank you ENrique for joining in this ''Ciliolarina comitteee'' Your collection is very much like mine .
And thank again to everyone bringing documentation to this exciting matter.
AMitiés
Michel