4.5 Article

Revising the Schizoparmaceae: Coniella and its synonyms Pilidiella and Schizoparme

Journal

STUDIES IN MYCOLOGY
Volume -, Issue 85, Pages 1-34

Publisher

CENTRAALBUREAU SCHIMMELCULTURE
DOI: 10.1016/j.simyco.2016.09.001

Keywords

Diaporthales; DNA phylogeny; phytopathogenic fungi; Sordariomycetes; systematics

Categories

Funding

  1. Department of Science and Technology
  2. Philippine Council for Industry, Energy and Emerging Technology Research and Development
  3. Department of Science and Technology (DOST-PCIEERD), Bicutan, Taguig City, Philippines through the BCDA Fund [002]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The asexual genera Coniella (1918) and Pilidiella (1927), including their sexual morphs in Schizoparme (1923), have a cosmopolitan distribution and are associated with foliar, fruit, leaf, stem and root diseases on a wide variety of hosts. Species of these genera sometimes occur as secondary invaders of plant tissues infected by other organisms or that are injured by other causes. Several studies published over the last few decades had conflicting ideas as to whether Coniella, Pilidiella and Schizoparme should be regarded as synonymous or as separate genera. The present study aims to resolve the generic classification of these genera through phylogenetic analyses of the concatenated alignment of partial LSU nrDNA, rpb2, ITS nrDNA and tef1 sequence data of 117 isolates, combined with their morphology. Results revealed that all strains cluster in a single well-supported clade. Conidial colour, traditionally the distinguishing character between Coniella and Pilidiella, evolved multiple times throughout the clade, and is not a good character at generic level in Schizoparmaceae. The three genera should therefore be regarded as synonymous, with the older name Coniella having priority. Furthermore, this study delineated 13 new species, and new combinations were proposed for a further 15 species.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available