4.2 Article

Barrmaelia and Entosordaria in Barrmaeliaceae (fam. nov., Xylariales) and critical notes on Anthostomella-like genera based on multigene phylogenies

期刊

MYCOLOGICAL PROGRESS
卷 17, 期 1-2, 页码 155-177

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11557-017-1329-6

关键词

Anthostoma; Ascomycota; Clypeosphaeria; Phylogenetic analysis; Pyrenomycetes; Sordariomycetes; Stereosphaeria; Xylariaceae

类别

资金

  1. Austrian Science Fund (FWF)
  2. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P27645-B16]
  3. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P27645] Funding Source: Austrian Science Fund (FWF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phylogenetic analyses of a combined DNA data matrix containing ITS, LSU, rpb2 and tub2 sequences of representative Xylariales revealed that the genus Barrmaelia is a well-defined monophylum, as based on four of its described species (B. macrospora, B. moravica, B. oxyacanthae, B. rhamnicola) and the new species B. rappazii. The generic type of Entosordaria, E. perfidiosa, is revealed as the closest relative of Barrmaelia, being phylogenetically distant from the generic type of Clypeosphaeria, C. mamillana, which belongs to Xylariaceae sensu stricto. Entosordaria and Barrmaelia are highly supported and form a distinct lineage, which is recognised as the new family Barrmaeliaceae. The new species E. quercina is described. Barrmaelia macrospora, B. moravica and B. rhamnicola are epitypified and E. perfidiosa is lecto- and epitypified. Published sequences of Anthostomella and several Anthostomella-like species from the genera Alloanthostomella, Anthostomelloides, Neoanthostomella, Pseudoanthostomella and Pyriformiascoma are evaluated, demonstrating the necessity of critical inspection of published sequence data before inclusion in phylogenies. Verified isolates of several species from these genera should be re-sequenced to affirm their phylogenetic affinities. In addition, the generic type of Anthostomella should be sequenced before additional generic re-arrangements are proposed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据