Conidiobolus stilbeus, a new species with mycelial strand and two types of primary conidiophores

Abstract

A new entomogenous fungus, Conidiobolus stilbeus is described and illustrated from China. The new species differs from other Conidiobolus species by forming mycelial strands with 2-6 aerial phototropic hyphae, and by its two types of primary conidiophores: one is shorter and differentiated from aerial hyphae, the other is often longer and inflated and arises from substrate mycelia. Molecular phylogeny inferred from the nuclear large subunit ribosomal DNA supports C. stilbeus as a distinct species in the genus, most closely related to C. lachnodes, C. sinensis, C. stromoideus and C. thromboides.

Full text

Submitted 20 September 2016, Accepted 1 December 2016, Published online 8 December 2016
Corresponding Author: Huang Bo – e-mail – bhuang@ahut.edu.cn
Liu Xiao-Yong – e-mail – Liuxiaoyong@im.ac.cn 801
Conidiobolus stilbeus, a new species with mycelial strand and two
types of primary conidiophores
Nie Yong1, 2, Tang Xiao-Xiao1, Liu Xiao-Yong3*and Huang Bo1*
1Anhui Provincial Key Laboratory for Microbial Pest Control, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei, China
230036
2School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Anhui University of Technology, Ma,anshan, China 243002
3State Key Laboratory of Mycology, Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China 100101
Nie Y, Tang XX, Liu XY, Huang B 2016 – Conidiobolus stilbeus, a new species with mycelial
strand and two types of primary conidiophores. Mycosphere 7 (6), 801–809, Doi
10.5943/mycosphere/7/6/11
Abstract
A new entomogenous fungus, Conidiobolus stilbeus is described and illustrated from China.
The new species differs from other Conidiobolus species by forming mycelial strands with 2–6
aerial phototropic hyphae, and by its two types of primary conidiophores: one is shorter and
differentiated from aerial hyphae, the other is often longer and inflated and arises from substrate
mycelia. Molecular phylogeny inferred from the nuclear large subunit ribosomal DNA supports C.
stilbeus as a distinct species in the genus, most closely related to C. lachnodes, C. sinensis, C.
stromoideus and C. thromboides.
Key words – aerial hyphae – Conidiobolus –28S rDNA
Introduction
The genus Conidiobolus was established by Brefeld in 1884 and includes saprobes, insect
pathogens, and facultative human pathogens (Gryganskyi et al. 2012). These fungi, especially C.
coronatus (Costantin) A. Batko 1964, are widely distributed throughout the world (Nie et al. 2012).
In a modern classification system, this genus belongs to Ancylistaceae, Entomophthorales,
Entomophthoromycetes, Entomophthoromycota (Humber 2012).
Based on the morphological and nutritional data mainly adopted in the studies by Drechsler
(1952, 1953, 1955, 1960) and Srinivasan & Thirumalachar (1962, 1968), a total of 27 Conidobolus
species were accepted by King (1976a, b, 1977). Since then, only six species have been added to
the genus: C. chlapowskii (Bałazy et al. 1987), C. iuxtagenitus (Waters & Callaghan 1989), C.
gustafssonii (Bałazy 1993), C. margaritatus (Huang et al. 2007), C. thermophilus (Waingankar et
al. 2008) and C. sinensis (Nie et al. 2012).
Gryganskyi et al. (2012) suggested that the ancestral fungi of the class
Entomophthoromycetes might belong to the taxa currently classified in Conidiobolus. Then, four
loci (LSU, SSU, RPB2, and mtSSU) were used to reconstruct the molecular phylogeny for
Conidiobolus and separated this genus into at least three groups (Gryganskyi et al 2013) which is
consistent with a previous study based only on SSU rDNA data (Jensen et al. 1998). This molecular
work supports the secondary conidial types' view of Ben-Ze'ev & Kenneth (1982). In the opinion of
Mycosphere 7 (6): 801–809 (2016) ISSN 2077 7019
www.mycosphere.org Article Mycosphere
Copyright © 2016 Online Edition
Doi 10.5943/mycosphere/7/6/11

802
Ben-Ze'ev and Kenneth, the genus Conidiobolus was divided into three subgenera: Delacroixia,
Capillidium and Conidiobolus. Under this taxonomical scheme, the subgenus Conidiobolus
includes 16 species.
Since 2008, a survey of Conidiobolus species from China has resulted in more than 300
strains, and one new species and four new records have been published (Wang et al. 2010a, b).
Higher intra-specific similarity and inter-specific differences of LSU rDNA sequences were shown
for Conidiobolus species (Nie et al. 2012). Therefore, a novel Conidiobolus species is proposed
based on morphological features and molecular data of partial LSU rDNA sequences in this study.
Materials & Methods
Isolates and morphology
Soil samples were collected in Shandong Province of China in June 2011. A canopy plating
approach similar to that by King (1976a) and Drechsler (1952) was used: The soil samples were
placed in sterile polythene bags for transport to the lab. Then in lab, a Petri-dish containing potato
dextrose agar (PDA, Difco) was inverted over the soil. The dishes were sealed with parafilm and
incubated in dark at 21ºC, and examined daily. A dissecting microscope was applied to observe the
development of typical compact, glassy colonies of entomophthoralean fungi. When detected on
the PDA canopy, discharged conidia were transferred to a new PDA plate for purification and then
identified by morphological structures as described by King (1976a).The methods should be
adequately detailed or referenced to other work.
DNA extraction, PCR and sequencing
The Conidiobolus strains used in this study are shown in Table 1. After incubation on PDA
at 21ºC for approximately seven days, genomic DNA was extracted with modified CTAB method
(Watanabe et al. 2010) from the mycelia scraped from cellophane which were put on the top of the
PDA canopy. The extracted DNA was stored in 100 μL TE buffer (10 mM Tris-HCI, pH 8.0; 1 mM
EDTA) at -20ºC. The 28S rDNA region was amplified with the primers LROR (5’-
ACCCGCTGAACTTAAGC-3’) and LR5 (5’-TCCTGAGGGAAACTTCG-3’) (Vilgalys & Hester
1990). The PCR reaction used in this study for 28S rDNA amplification has been described by Liu
et al. (2005). A 50 μL of PCR reaction mixture contains 200 μM dNTPs each, 1 × Mg-free buffer,
2.5 mM MgCl2, 0.5 μM primers each, 10-50 ng of genomic DNA and 2 units of Taq polymerase.
The thermocycling protocol consists of an initial denaturation at 100ºC for 5 min, followed by 95ºC
for 5 min (during this time, Taq polymerase was added to each tube), then 34 cycles of 94ºC for 1
min, 55ºC for 2 min, 72ºC for 2 min, and a final extension step at 72ºC for 10 min. The nucleotide
sequencing of the PCR products was performed at Shanghai Genecore Biotechnologies Company
(Shanghai, China). The generated sequence has been submitted to GenBank (Table 1).
Phylogeny reconstruction
Multiple sequence alignments for partial 28S rDNA were conducted using BioEdit (Hall
1999) and Clustal X (Thompson et al. 1997). This alignment was deposited to TreeBASE
(http://purl.org/phylo/treebase/phylows/study/TB2:S19863). Three entomogenous fungi (Batkoa
apiculata, Entomophthora muscae and Erynia conica) were used as outgroups. Maximum
parsimony (MP) was applied to the partial 28S rDNA dataset. PAUP* 4.0b10 (Swofford 2003) was
used to perform the MP analysis. All characters were weighted, and gaps were treated as missing
data. Branch swapping algorithm by tree bisection-reconnection (TBR) and MulTrees were used.
Branch support was estimated by bootstrapping with 1,000 replicates (Felsenstein 1985). Bayesian
inference of molecular data sets was conducted with an online version of MrBayes 3.1.2 (Ronquist
& Huelsenbeck 2003). A general model of DNA substitution with gamma-distributed rate variation
across sites (GTR+G) was adopted. Four simultaneous Markov chains (three cold, one

803
Table 1 Cultures and their corresponding GenBank numbers used in phylogenetic analyses*.
Species
Strain #
28S rDNA
Conidiobolus adiaeretus Drechsler
ARSEF451 (T)
KC461182
C. antarcticus S. Tosi, Caretta & Humber
ARSEF6913 (T)
DQ364207
C. bangalorensis Sriniv. & Thirum.
ARSEF449 (T)
DQ364204
C. brefeldianus Couch
ARSEF452 (T)
EF392382
C. chlamydosporus Drechsler
ATCC12242 (T)
JF816212
C. coronatus Batko
AFTOL137
AY546691
ARSEF525
DQ364205
RCEF4518
JN131537
C. couchii Sriniv. & Thirum.
ATCC18152 (T)
JN131538
C. firmipilleus Drechsler
ARSEF6384
JX242592
C. heterosporus Drechsler
RCEF4430
JF816225
C.humicolus Sriniv. & Thirum.
ATCC28849 (T)
JF816220
C.iuxtagenitus S.D. Waters & Callaghan
ARSEF6378 (T)
KC788410
RCEF4445
JX946695
C. khandalensis Srin. & Thirum.
ATCC15162 (T)
KX686994
C. lachnodes Drechsler
ARSEF700
KC788408
C. lichenicolus Srin. & Thirum.
ATCC16200 (T)
JF816216
C. lobatus Sriniv. & Thirum.
ATCC18153 (T)
JF816218
C. mycophilus Srin. & Thirum.
ATCC16199 (T)
KX686995
C. nodosus Srin. & Thirum.
ATCC16577 (T)
JF816217
C. osmodes Drechsler
ARSEF79
EF392371
RCEF4447
JN131539
C. parvus Drechsler
ATCC14634 (T)
KX752051
C. paulus Drechsler
ARSEF450 (T)
KC788409
C. polytocus Drechsler
ATCC12244 (T)
JF816213
C. pumilus Drechsler
ARSEF453 (T)
EF392383
C. rhysosporus Drechsler
ATCC12588 (T)
JN131540
C. sinensis Y. Nie, X.Y. Liu & B. Huang
RCEF4952 (T)
JF816224
C. stilbeus
RCEF5584 (T)
KP218521
C. stromoideus Sriniv. & Thirum.
ATCC15430 (T)
JF816219
C. terrestris Srin. & Thirum.
ATCC16198 (T)
KX752050
C. thromboides Drechsler
ATCC12587 (T)
JF816214
RCEF4492
JF816223
Batkoa apiculata (Thaxt.) Humber
ARSEF3130
EF392404
Entomophthora muscae (Cohn) Fresen.
ARSEF3074
DQ273772
Erynia conica (Nowak.) Remaud. & Hennebert
ARSEF1439
EF392396
*The taxonomy refers to the scheme of King (1976a, b; 1977). ARSEF = ARS Entomopathogenic Fungus Collection
(Ithaca, U.S.A.). ATCC = American Type Culture Collection (Manassas, U.S.A). RCEF = Research Center for
Entomogenous Fungi (Hefei, China). AFTOL = Assembling the Fungal Tree of Life. T = ex type.
heated) were run for a total of 500,000 Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) generations. The first
25% of trees were removed as burn-in.
Results
Phylogenetic analyses
The partial 28S rDNA sequence alignment consists of 1036 characters, with 596
phylogentically informative positions. The maximum parsimony analysis resulted in the most
parsimonious tree (Fig 1) with a length (TL) of 3,179 steps, consistency index (CI) of 0.4498,
retention index (RI) of 0.6987, homoplasy index (HI) of 0.5502, and rescaled consistency index
(RC) of 0.3143. The average standard deviation of split frequencies in Bayesian inference was
0.007557, below 0.01. In the strict consensus tree (Fig 1) generated by maximum parsimony,
incorporating the posterior probabilities of Bayesian inference, C. stilbeus is placed in Clade III
(BP = 78, PP = 1.0), closely to C. lachnodes, C. thromboides, C. sinensis and C. stromoideus with a
relatively lower booststrap support of 57%.

804
Figure 1 – Phylogram derived from maximum parsimony analysis of the partial 28S rDNA
sequences of 33 Conidiobolus strains with Entomophthora muscae, Batkoa apiculata and Erynia
conica as outgroups. Bootstrap support values (BP) > 50% from 1,000 replicates and Bayesian
posterior probabilities (PP) > 0.98 (98%) are successively shown above respective branches.
Conidiobolus stilbeus Y. Nie & B. Huang, sp. nov. Figs 2–12
MycoBank 818142
FoF 02720 (http://www.facesoffungi.org/, Jayasiri SC et al. 2015)
Etymology – stilbeus (Lat.) = fasciculation, referring to aerial hyphae forming mycelial
strand. This species differs from other Conidiobolus species by forming mycelial strand with 2-6
aerial phototropic hyphae, and by its two types of primary conidiophores: one is shorter and
differentiated from aerial hyphae; the other is often longer and inflated, and arises from substrate
mycelia.
Known distribution – widespread in soil and plant detritus
Material examined – China, Shandong Province, Mengshan National Forest Park, 34°22′–
36°13′N, 117°24′–119°11′E, isolated from soil, 14 June 2011, Y. Nie, RCEF5584 (Holotype) – ex-
type culture in RCEF.
Notes – Colonies grown on PDA for 3 days at 21˚C, reaching ca 22–25 mm in diameter.
Mycelia colorless, moderately branched, 5–10 μm wide, 2–6 aerial hyphae often oriented toward
the main source of light and forming mycelial strand. Primary conidiophores, positively
phototropic, colorless, unbranched and producing a single globose conidium, extending a length of
68–133 μm (commonly 80–100 μm) into the air, widening upward, 10–12 μm wide, some primary
conidiophores without inflated upward are differentiated from aerial hyphae, 15–60 (commonly
25–40 μm). Primary conidia forcibly discharged, colorless, globose, measuring 17–21 μm in
greatest width and 21–25 μm in total length including a basal papilla 2–6 μm high and 5–10 μm
wide. After discharging onto 2% water-agar, similar and smaller secondary conidia arising from
primary conidia. Zygospores formed after 5 days, mature zygospores smooth, colorless,
subglobose, 15–19 μm in diameter with wall thickness of 1–2.5 μm.

805
Figures 2–12 – Conidiobolus stilbeus. 2. Colony on PDA after 3 days at 21˚C. 3,4,5. Aerial
phototropic hyphae forming mycelial strand. 6,7. Primary conidiophores differentiated from aerial
hyphae. 8,9. Primary conidiophores with inflation arising from substrate mycelia. 10. Primary
conidia. 11. Producing secondary conidia.12. Zygospores. – Bars: 2 = 10 mm, 3 = 100 μm, 4–12 =
20 μm).
Key to Fungus species
1. Microconidia and capilliconidia produced ................................................. Conidiobolus adiaeretus
1. Microconidia produced, capilliconidia not produced ...................................................................... 2
2. Villose resting spores produced ..................................................................................... C. coronatus
2. Villose resting spores not produced ................................................................................................. 3
3. Zygospores produced ....................................................................................................................... 4
3. Zygospores not produced ................................................................................................................. 8
4. Globose chlamydospores produced .............................................................................. C. humicolus
4. Globose chlamydospores not produced ........................................................................................... 5
5. Primary conidiophores longer (up to 100 μm or more) ................................................................... 6
5. Primary conidiophores short (50 μm or less)................................................................................... 7
6. Primary conidia larger, maximum not under 45×54 μm ........................................... C. macrosporus
6. Primary conidia small, maximum not over 37×42 μm ................................................ C. incongruus
7. Primary conidia small, less than 26×30 μm ................................................................ C. mycophilus
7. Primary conidia small, up to 31×36 μm .................................................................... C. brefeldianus
8. Primary conidiophores not branched, produced a single primary conidia ................. C. firmipilleus
8. Primary conidiophores branched, produced more than 2 primary conidium .................................. 9
9. Primary conidia larger, up to 42×44 μm ................................................................... C. megalotocus
9. Primary conidia larger, less than 25×29 μm .................................................................. C. polytocus
10. Microconidia not produced, capilliconidia produced .................................................................. 11

806
10. Microconidia and capilliconidianot produced ............................................................................. 15
11. bi- or trifurcate with each branch bearing a single capilliconidia ........................... C. heterosporus
11. A single capilliconidia arised from primary conidia .................................................................... 12
12. Zygospores produced ................................................................................................................... 13
12. Zygospores not produced ............................................................................................................. 14
13. Zygospores smooth ............................................................................................... C. bangalorensis
13. Zygospores mostly rough ........................................................................................ C. rhysosporus
14. Primary conidia small, less than 14×18 μm, capilliconidia small, less than 7.5×12 μm .................
.............................................................................................................................................. C. pumilus
14. Primary conidia larger, maximum not under 24×26 μm, capilliconidia small, maximum not over
10×25 μm ............................................................................................................................... C. lobatus
15. Resting spores not produced ...................................................................................... C. multivagus
15. Resting spores produced .............................................................................................................. 16
16. Only chlamydospores produced ................................................................................. C. lachnodes
16. Zygospores produced ................................................................................................................... 20
17. Elongate secondary conidia produced ......................................................................................... 18
17. Elongate secondary conidia not produced .................................................................................. 19
18. Chlamydospores produced........................................................................................... C. eurymitus
18. Chlamydospores not produced .................................................................................................... 19
19. Each zygospore in a position separated by a short, but relatively constant, distance from a
lateral conjugation outgrowth or beak ........................................................................... C. iuxtagenitus
19. Each zygospore in a position not separated by a short, but relatively constant, distance from a
lateral conjugation outgrowth or beak ................................................................................... C .couchii
20. Primary conidiophores produced from cushion mycelium .......................................................... 21
20. Primary conidiophores not produced from cushion mycelium .................................................... 22
21. Usually branched at edge mycelia, much shorter conidiophores (12 – 40µm) produced ...............
....................................................................................................................................... C. stromoideus
21. Rarely branched at edge mycelia, much longer conidiophores (32.5 – 110µm) produced .............
.............................................................................................................................................. C. sinensis
22. Primary conidiophores bifurcated and bearing 2 conidium .................................... C. margaritatus
22. Primary conidiophores not bifurcated and bearing a single conidia ............................................ 23
23. Forming mycelial strand with 2-6 aerial phototropic hyphae and two types of primary
conidiophores ........................................................................................................................ C. stilbeus
23. Not forming mycelial strand and forming one type of primary conidiophores ........................... 24
24. The optimal temperature for the culture growth appears to be between 40 and 45℃ .....................
..................................................................................................................................... C. thermophilus
24. The optimal temperature for the culture growth appears to be between 20 and 30℃ ................. 25
25. Zygospores yellowish .................................................................................................................. 26
25. Zygospores colorless ................................................................................................................... 27
26. Zygospores usually rough (a few smooth ones may be present) ................................... C. osmodes
26. Zygospores smooth ........................................................................................................... C. paulus
27. Zygospores larger, more than 60 µm .......................................................................... C. utriculosis
27. Zygospores small, less than 40 µm .............................................................................................. 28
28. Primary conidiophores longer, maximum not under 100 µm ...................................................... 29
28. Primary conidiophores short, maximum not over 30 μm ............................................................ 30
29. Mycelium lustrous, zygospores small, 12 – 18 μm .................................................. C. lamprauges
29. Mycelium not lustrous, zygospores larger, 17.5 – 27 μm ........................................ C. thromboides
30. Primary conidia (15-18×17-21 μm) and zygospores (17-22×21-30 μm) small ...........................
...................................................................................................................................... C. khandalensis
30. Primary conidia (20-25×25-31 μm) and zygospores (25-40 μm) larger ........................................
......................................................................................................................................... C. antarcticus

807
Discussion
In comparing the morphological features with earlier described Conidiobolus species, the
present isolate differs from other species by forming mycelial strand with 2–6 aerial phototropic
hyphae, and by its two types of primary conidiophores: one is shorter and differentiated from aerial
hyphae, the other is often longer and inflated, and arises from substrate mycelium. To some extent,
the length of primary conidia of C. stilbeus resembles six Conidiobolus species: it is distinguished
from C. couchii mainly by its lack of elongated secondary conidia and longer primary
conidiophores (Srinivasan & Thirumalachar 1968), from C. lamprauges (25 －50 μm), C.
lachnodes(15－40 μm), C. thermophilus (37.5－50 μm), C. multivagus (20－75 μm) and C.
khandalensis (10－30 μm) by its longer primary conidiophores (80－100 μm) (Drechsler 1953,
1955, 1960, Waingankar et al. 2008, Srinivasan & Thirumalachar 1962).
Gryganskyi et al. (2013) conducted a preliminary molecular work for Conidiobolus and
suggested that more ex-type should be needed to reveal the phylogenetic lineages in Conidiobolus.
The phylogenetic analysis of partial 28S rDNA in this study shows that the genus Conidioblus
splits into three clades (Fig1). Conidiobolus stilbeus is located in Clade III composing of 10 isolates
which lacks of microconidia and capilliconidia. Within this Clade, it is most closely related to C.
lachnodes and relatively distant to C. couchii, which are both morphologically allied to C. stilbeus.
Another morphological relative C. khandalensis is phylogenetically distantly related, placing in the
Clade I. The remaining three morphologically similar species C. lamprauges, C. multivagus and C.
thermophilus need to be investigated in the future upon the availability of their living cultures.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Dr. Hai-Sheng Yuan (Shenyang Institute of Applied Ecology, Chinese
Academy of Sciences) for improving manuscript writing. This project was supported by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 30770008 and 31370068) and the Key Science
Research Project of Anhui Province (No. TD200708).
References
Bałazy S, Wiśniewski J, Kaczmarek S. 1987 – Some note worthy fungi occurring on mites. Bulletin
of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Biological Sciences 35, 199–224.
Bałazy S. 1993 – Entomophthorales: Flora of Poland (Flora Polska), Fungi (Mycota), v. 24.
Kraków, Poland, Polish Academy of Science, W. Szafer Inst. Botany.
Ben-Ze'ev IS, Kenneth RG. 1982 – Features-criteria of taxonomic value in the Entomophthorales:
I. A revision of the Batkoan classification. Mycotaxon 14, 393–455.
Drechsler C. 1952 – Widespread distribution of Delacroixia coronata and other saprophytic
Entomophthoraceae in plant detritus. Science 115, 575–576.
Drechsler C. 1953 – Three new species of Conidiobolus isolated from leaf mold. Journal of the
Washington Academy of Science 43(2), 29–34.
Drechsler C. 1955 – Three new species of Conidiobolus isolated from decaying plant detritus.
American Journal of Botany 42, 437–443.
Drechsler C. 1960 – Two new species of Conidiobolus found in plant detritus. American Journal of
Botany 47, 368–377.
Felsenstein J. 1985 – Confidence limits on the bootstrap: an approach using the bootstrap.
Evolution 38, 783–791.
Gryganskyi AP, Humber RA, Smith ME, Miadlikovska J, Wu S, Voigt K, Walther G, Anishchenko
IM, Vilgalys R. 2012 – Molecular phylogeny of the Entomophthoromycota. Molecular
Phylogenetics and Evolution 65, 682–694.
Gryganskyi AP, Humber RA, Smith ME, Hodge K, Huang B, Voigt K, Vilgalys R. 2013 –
Phylogenetic lineages in Entomophthoromycota. Persoonia 30, 94–105.
Hall TA. 1999 – Bioedit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program
for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symposium Series 41, 95–98.

808
Huang B, Humber RA, Hodge KT. 2007 – A new species of Conidiobolus from Great Smoky
Mountains National Park. Mycotaxon 100, 227–233.
Humber RA. 2012 – Entomophthoromycota: a new phylum and reclassification for
entomophthoroid fungi. Mycotaxon 120, 477–492.
Jayasiri SC, Hyde KD, Ariyawansa HA, Bhat J, Buyck B, Cai L, Dai YC, Abd-Elsalam KA, Ertz
D, Hidayat I, Jeewon R, Jones EBG, Bahkali AH, Karunarathna SC, Liu JK, Luangsa-Ard
JJ, Lumbsch HT, Maharachchikumbura SSN, McKenzie EHC, Moncalvo JM, Ghobad-
Nejhad M, Nilsson H, Pang KL, Pereira OL, Phillips AJL, Raspe O, Rollins AW, Romero
AI, Etayo J, Selcuk F, Stephenson SL, Suetrong S, Taylor JE, Tsui CKM, Vizzini A, Abdel-
Wahab MA, Wen TC, Boonmee S, Dai DQ, Daranagama DA, Dissanayake AJ, Ekanayaka
AH, Fryar SC, Hongsanan S, Jayawardena RS, Li WJ, Perera RH, Phookamsak R, De Silva
NI, Thambugala KM, Tian Q, Wijayawardene NN, Zhao RL, Zhao Q, Kang JC, Promputtha
I. 2015 – The faces of fungi database: fungal names linked with morphology, phylogeny
and human impacts. Fungal Diversity 74, 3–18.
Jensen AB, Gargas A, Eilenberg J, Rosendahl S. 1998 – Relationships of the insect-pathogenic
order Entomophthorales (Zygomycota, Fungi) based on phylogenetic analyses of nucleus
small subunit ribosomal DNA sequences (SSU rDNA). Fungal Genetics and Biology24(3),
325–334.
King DS. 1976a – Systematics of Conidiobolus (Entomophthorales) using numerical taxonomy I.
Taxonomic considerations. Canadian Journal of Botany 54, 45–65.
King DS. 1976b – Systematics of Conidiobolus (Entomophthorales) using numerical taxonomy II.
Taxonomic considerations. Canadian Journal of Botany 54, 1285–1296.
King DS. 1977 – Systematics of Conidiobolus (Entomophthorales) using numerical taxonomy III.
Descriptions of recognized species. Canadian Journal of Botany 55, 718–729.
Liu M, Rombach MC, Humber RA, Hodge KT. 2005 – What’s in a name? Aschersoniainsperata: a
new pleoanamorphic fungus with characteristics of Aschersonia and Hirsutella. Mycologia
97, 249–256.
Nie Y, Yu CZ, Liu XY, Huang B. 2012 – A new species of Conidiobolus (Ancylistaceae) from
Anhui, China. Mycotaxon 120, 427–435.
Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP. 2003 – MRBAYES 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed
models. Bioinformatics 19, 1572–1574.
Srinivasan MC, Thirumalachar MJ. 1962 – Studies on species of Conidiobolus from India–III.
Mycologia 54(6), 685–693.
Srinivasan MC, Thirumalachar MJ. 1968 – Two new species of Conidiobolus from India. Journal
of the Mitchell Society 84, 211–212.
Swofford DL. 2003 – PAUP*. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony and other methods. Version
4. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinensisuer Associates.
Thompson JD, Gibson TJ, Plewniak F. 1997 – The Clustal-X windows interface: flexible strategies
for multiple sequence alignment aided by quality analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Research 63,
215–228.
Vilgalys R, Hester M. 1990 – Rapid genetic identification and mapping of enzymatically amplified
ribosomal DNA from several Cryptococcus species. Journal of Bacteriology 172, 4238–
4246.
Waingankar VM, Singh SK, Srinivasan MC. 2008 – A new thermophilic species of Conidiobolus
from India. Mycopathologia 165, 173–177.
Wang CF, Li KP, Huang B. 2010a – A new record to China – Conidiobolus iuxtagenitus. Journal of
Fungal Research 1, 12–14.
Wang CF, Li KP, Liu YJ, Li ZZ, Huang B. 2010b – Three new Chinese records of Conidiobolus.
Mycosystema 4, 595–599.
Watanabe M, Lee K, Goto K, Kumagai S, Sugita-Konishi Y, Hara-Kudo Y. 2010 – Rapid and
effective DNA extraction method with bead grinding for a large amount of fungal DNA.
Journal of Food Protection 73(6), 1077–1084.

809
Waters SD, Callaghan AA. 1989 – Conidiobolus iuxtagenitus, a new species with discharge
delongate repetitional conidia and conjugation tubes. Mycological Research 93, 223–226.