Content uploaded by Rajesh Jeewon
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rajesh Jeewon on Aug 15, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Phytotaxa 316 (3): 239–249
http://www.mapress.com/j/pt/
Copyright © 2017 Magnolia Press Article PHYTOTAXA
ISSN 1179-3155 (print edition)
ISSN 1179-3163 (online edition)
Accepted by Jian-Kui Liu: 21 Jul. 2017; published: 8 Aug. 2017
https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.316.3.3
239
Phylogenetic taxonomy of Dematiopleospora fusiformis sp. nov.
(Phaeosphaeriaceae) from Russia
SHIKE HUANG1,2,3, RAJESH JEEWON4, DHANUSHKA N. WANASINGHE2,3, ISHARA S MANAWASINGHE5,
TIMUR S. BULGAKOV6, KEVIN D HYDE2 & JICHUAN KANG1,*
1Engineering and Research Center for Southwest Bio-Pharmaceutical Resources of National Education Ministry of China, Guizhou
University, Huaxi District, 550025, Guiyang Guizhou, P.R. China
2Center of Excellence in Fungal Research, Mae Fah Luang University, Chiang Rai 57100, Thailand
3Key Laboratory for Plant Biodiversity and Biogeography of East Asia (KLPB), Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sci-
ences, Kunming, 650201, Yunnan, P.R. China
4Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Mauritius, Reduit, Mauritius
5Beijing Key Laboratory of Environmental Friendly Management on Fruits Diseases and Pests in North China, Institute of Plant and
Environment Protection, Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Beijing 100097, P.R. China
6Russian Research Institute of Floriculture and Subtropical Crops, Sochi, 354002, Yana Fabritsiusa street, 2/28, Krasnodar region, Russia
*Correspondence author: email: jckang@gzu.edu.cn
Abstract
Dematiopleospora fusiformis sp. nov., isolated from a decaying upright stem of Achillea millefolium (Asteraceae) in the
Rostov Region of Russia is described herein based on morphology and ITS, LSU and SSU rRNA sequence based analyses.
The new taxon is similar to D. mariae, the type species of Dematiopleospora, and shares similar features such as unilocular
ascomata with brown setae in the ostiole, cylindrical asci and fusiform, muriform ascospores. However, D. fusiformis dif-
fers from the type and other species in Dematiopleospora in having light brown and larger ascospores. Maximum likeli-
hood and Bayesian inference analyses reveal that our new taxon belongs to the family Phaeosphaeriaceae and is nested in
between Dematiopleospora mariae and D. cirsii with high support. A comparison with other similar species also points out
to other morphological differences that segregates D. fusiformis. Phylogenies also indicate that the affinities of two other
Dematiopleospora species (viz. D. luzulae and D. alliariae) are rather ambiguous. Although the latter clearly fits within
the Phaeosphaeriaceae, they are phylogenetically distant from all other Dematiopleospora strains that belong to this genus
and in addition their relationships to other taxa are not supported. Further taxonomic studies are warranted to clarify their
morpho-phylo taxonomy. Dematiopleospora mariae, D. cirsii and D. fusiformis could be treated as Dematiopleospora sensu
stricto.
Keywords: Dothideomycetes, rRNA sequence analyses, new species, Pleosporales, morphology
Introduction
The majority of the species in Phaeosphaeriaceae are endophytes or saprobes on herbaceous plants, but have also been
reported as pathogens on various hosts (Zeiders 1975, Shoemaker & Babcock 1984, Arzanlou & Crous 2006, Schoch et
al. 2006, 2009, Zhang et al. 2009, 2012, Quaedvlieg et al. 2013, Wijayawardene et al. 2013, Phookamsak et al. 2014,
Abd-Elsalam et al. 2016, Li et al. 2016). Phylogenetic studies have shown that Phaeosphaeriaceae is a heterogeneous
group and presently the family includes 38 genera based on multi-gene analyses (Kirk et al. 2008, Zhang et al. 2009,
Wijayawardene et al. 2014, Phookamsak et al. 2014, Abd-Elsalam et al. 2016). The genus Dematiopleospora, was
introduced by Wanasinghe et al. (2014) with D. mariae Wanas., Camporesi, E.B.G. Jones & K.D. Hyde as the type
species. The genus is characterized by thick, brown, periphyses in the ostiole, superficial ascomata and muriform
ascospores with light end cells. Dematiopleospora luzulae Wanasinghe, Camporesi, E.B.G. Jones & K.D. Hyde was
added to the genus by Ariyawansa et al. (2015). Dematiopleospora alliariae Thambugala, Camporesi & K.D. Hyde
and Dematiopleospora cirsii Wanasinghe, Camporesi, E.B.G. Jones & K.D. Hyde were introduced by Hyde et al.
(2016) bringing the number of species in the genus to four.
HUANG ET AL.
240 • Phytotaxa 316 (3) © 2017 Magnolia Press
In this study, we collected one sample of Dematiopleospora on a submerged stem of Achillea millefolium
(Asteraceae) in Russia. This species is introduced with a comprehensive description supported with morphological
differences with known taxa as well as phylogenetic inference from ribosomal RNA sequence based data.
Materials & Methods
Sample collection, morphological studies and isolation
Dead stems were collected from Shakhty City, Russia, on 21 May 2015 and brought to the laboratory in Zip lock
plastic bags. Specimens were examined using a Motic SMZ 168 stereomicroscope. Micromorphological characters
were examined by a Nikon ECLIPSE 80i compound microscope and images were captured with a Canon EOS 600D
digital camera. Measurements was made with the Taro soft ® Image Framework program version.0.9.7. Single
ascospore isolation was attempted following the method described in Chomnunti et al. (2014), however, the spores
did not germinate. The specimens are deposited in the Mae Fah Luang University (MFLU) Herbarium, Chiang Rai,
Thailand and duplicated in Kunming Institute of Botany, Academia Sinica. Facesoffungi and Index Fungorum numbers
were obtained as in Jayasiri et al. (2015) and Index Fungorum (2017). New species are established based on the
recommendations outlined by Jeewon and Hyde (2016).
DNA extraction, PCR amplification and sequencing
DNA was extracted directly from the fruiting bodies based on the following protocol: Fifteen fruiting bodies were
removed from the substrate surface using sterilized forceps and needles (taking extreme precaution not to handle
other contaminants) and are transferred to a drop of sterile water on a flamed microscope slide. Fruiting bodies are
then transferred to a sterile tube and DNA extracted using DNeasy Plant Mini Kit (Qiagen, Germany) following the
instructions of the manufacturer. Partial regions of the ribosomal gene were amplified using the primers ITS5 and ITS4
(White et al. 1990), LR0R and LR5 (Vilgalys and Hester 1990) and NS1 and NS4 (White et al. 1990) respectively.
Polymerase chain reactions (PCR) was carried out using the following protocol: The final volume of the PCR
reaction was 25 μL and contained 12.5 μL of 2 × Power Taq PCR MasterMix (a premix and ready to use solution,
including 0.1 Units/μl Taq DNA Polymerase, 500 μm dNTP mixture each (dATP, dCTP, dGTP, dTTP), 20 mM Tris-
HCL pH8.3, 100 mM, KCl, 3 mM MgCl2, stabilizer and enhancer), 0.5 μL of each primer (10 μM), 1 μL genomic DNA
extract and 10.5 μL deionized water. The PCR reactions were carried out in an Applied Biosystems 2720 thermocycler
(Foster City, CA, USA) under the following conditions: an initial denaturation at 94 °C for 3 minutes, followed by 35
cycles of denaturation at 94 °C for 30 seconds, annealing at 58 °C (ITS), 52 °C (LSU) or 54 °C (SSU) for 50 seconds
and extension 1 minute at 72 °C, a final extension at 72 °C for 10 minutes. PCR amplification productes were stained
with ethidium bromide and visualized on 1% agarose gel under UV light using a Gel DocTM XR+ Molecular Imager
(BIO-RAD, USA). The sequencing was done by Sun-biotech Company, Beijing, China.
Phylogenetic analysis
The quality of amplified nucleotide sequences were checked by Finch TV Version 1.4.0 (www.geospiza.com/finchtv).
Most similar taxa to our strain were searched from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) by
nucleotide BLAST and recent published phylogenies (Phookamsak et al. 2014, Wanasinghe et al. 2014, Ariyawansa
et al. 2015, Hyde et al. 2016). Sequences were aligned using the default settings of MAFFT version 7 (http://mafft.
cbrc.jp/alignment/server/index.html) (Katoh & Standley 2013) and improved further in Bioedit 7.0.9.0 (Hall 1999).
The online sequence trimming method Gappyout under TrimAl v.1.3 (http://phylemon.bioinfo.cipf.es/utilities.html)
was used to trim the strains. Phylogenetic analyses were conducted using partial sequences of three genes, the internal
transcribed spacers (ITS), partial large subunit rRNA (LSU) and partial small subunit rRNA (SSU) as previously
described by Jeewon et al (2002, 2003). The phylogenetic analyses of combined gene regions were performed using
maximum-likelihood (ML) and Bayesian inference (BI) methods.
The maximum-likelihood analysis was enforced with RAxML-HPC v.8 on XSEDE (Stamatakis 2014) with 1000
rapid bootstrap replicates using the GTR+GAMMA model of nucleotide substitution. Bootstrap support (BS) values
for RAxML higher than 60% are indicated below the nodes (Fig 1).
DEMATIOPLEOSPORA FUSIFORMIS SP. NOV. FROM RUSSIA Phytotaxa 316 (3) © 2017 Magnolia Press • 241
FIGURE 1. Maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree (lnL = -14877.362397) estimated from analysis of combined ITS, SSU and LSU
sequence data for 58 strains of Phaeosphaeriaceae with Didymella exigua as the outgroup taxon. Bootstrap support values for RAxML
higher than 60% and Bayesian posterior probabilities greater than 95% are indicated below the nodes. Hyphen (--) indicates a value lower
than 60% (BS) or 0.95 (BYPP). The original strain numbers are noted after the species names. Ex-type strains are indicated in bold. The
isolate from this study is indicated in blue.
Bayesian inference was obtained by using MrBayes v. 3.0b4 (Ronquist & Huelsenbeck 2003) with the best-
fit model (GTR+I+G for ITS and LSU; GTR+G for SSU) of sequence evolution estimated with MrModeltest 2.3
(Nylander et al. 2008) under the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) performed in PAUP v. 4.0b10. Posterior
probabilities (PP) were evaluated by Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling (MCMC) in MrBayes v. 3.0b4 (Rannala &
Yang 1996, Huelsenbeck & Ronquist 2001, Zhaxybayeva & Gogarten 2002,). Six simultaneous Markov chains were
run for 5,000,000 generations sampling one tree every 100th generations of trees the critical value for the topological
convergence diagnostic set to 0.01. Bayesian posterior probabilities percent values (BYPP) equal or greater than 0.95
are given above each node (Fig. 1).
HUANG ET AL.
242 • Phytotaxa 316 (3) © 2017 Magnolia Press
Phylogenetic trees were viewed with FigTree v1.4.0 (http:// tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/) and the final tree
prepared in Adobe Illustrator CS5. And the final alignment and tree were deposited in TreeBASE (submission ID:
20302 ). The nucleotide sequence data acquired were deposited in GenBank (Table 1).
TABLE 1. Strains and NCBI GenBank accession numbers of species used in this study. Isolate from this study is indicated
in red bold, the type strains are indicated in bold and strains for which sequences are unavailable are indicated by “–”.
Species Voucher/Culture GenBank accession number
ITS LSU SSU
Allophaeosphaeria muriformia MFLUCC 13-0349 KP765680 KP765681 KP765682
Ampelomyces quisqualis CBS 129.79 HQ108038 EU754128 EU754029
Chaetosphaeronema achilleae MFLUCC 16-0476 KX765265 KX765266 –
Chaetosphaeronema hispidulum CBS 216.75 KF251148 KF251652 EU754045
Dematiopleospora alliariae MFLUCC 13-0070 KX494876 KX494877 KX494878
Dematiopleospora cirsii MFLUCC:15-0615 KX274243 KX274250 –
Dematiopleospora fusiformis MFLU 15-2133 KY239029 KY239030 KY239028
Dematiopleospora luzulae MFLUCC:14-0932 –KT306951 –
Dematiopleospora mariae MFLUCC:15-0612 KX274244 KJ749653 KJ749652
Didymella exigua CBS 183.55 GU237794 JX681089 EU754056
Diederichomyces ficuzzae CBS 128019 KP170647 – –
Diederichomyces xanthomendozae CBS 129666 KP170651 – –
Entodesmium rude CBS 650.86 – GU301812 –
Galliicola pseudophaeosphaeria MFLU:140524b KT326692 KT326693 –
Juncaceicola italica MFLUCC 13-0750 KX500110 KX500107 KX500108
Leptospora rubella MFLU 16-0965 KX757835 KX757834 –
Leptospora galii KUMCC 15-0521 KX599547 KX599548 KX599549
Loratospora luzulae MFLUCC 14-0826 KT328497 KT328495 KT328496
Muriphaeosphaeria galatellae MFLUCC:14-0614 KT438333 KT438329 KT438331
Neosetophoma samararum CBS 138.96 FJ427061 GQ387578 GQ387517
Neosetophoma italica MFLU:14 C0809 KP711356 KP711361 KP711366
Neostagonospora caricis CBS 135092 KF251163 KF251667 –
Neostagonospora elegiae CBS 135101 KF251164 KF251668 –
Nodulosphaeria hirta MFLUCC 13-0867 KU708849 KU708845 KU708841
Nodulosphaeria italica MFLU:16-1359 KX672153 KX672158 –
Ophiobolus cirsii MFLUCC 13-0218 KM014664 KM014662 KM014663
Ophiobolus disseminans AS2L14-6 KP117305 – –
Ophiosimulans tanaceti MFLUCC140525 KU738892 KU738891 KU738890
Ophiosphaerella agrostidis MFLUCC 11-0152 KM434271 KM434281 KM434290
Paraphoma chrysanthemicola CBS 522.66 FJ426985 KF251670 GQ387521
Paraphoma radicina CBS 111.79 FJ427058 KF251676 EU754092
Parastagonospora nodorum CBS 110109 KF251177 KF251681 EU754076
Parastagonospora poagena CBS 136776 KJ869116 KJ869174 –
Phaeosphaeria oryzae CBS 110110 KF251186 KF251689 GQ387530
Phaeosphaeria papayae CBS 135416 KF251187 KF251690 –
Phaeosphaeriopsis glaucopunctata MFLUCC 13-0265 KJ522473 KJ522477 KJ522481
Phaeosphaeriopsis triseptata MFLUCC 13-0271 KJ522475 KJ522479 KJ522484
Poaceicola arundinis MFLUCC 15-0702 KU058716 KU058726 –
Poaceicola bromi MFLUCC 13-0739 KU058717 KU058727 –
Populocrescentia forlicesenensis MFLUCC:14-0651 KT306948 KT306952 KT306955
Premilcurensis senecionis MFLUCC:13-0575 KT728365 KT728366 –
Pseudophaeosphaeria rubi MFLUCC 14-0259 KX765298 KX765299 KX765300
Sclerostagonospora ericae CPC 25927 KX228268 KX228319 –
Sclerostagonospora opuntiae CBS 118224 DQ286768 DQ286772 –
Scolicosporium minkeviciusii MFLUCC 12-0089 – KF366382 KF366383
Septoriella phragmitis CPC 24118 KR873251 KR873279 –
Setomelanomma holmii CBS110217 AF525674 AF525678 AF525677
Setophoma terrestris CBS 335.29 KF251246 KF251749 GQ387526
Setophoma chromolaena CBS 135105 KF251244 KF251747 –
Setophoma sacchari CBS 333.39 KF251245 KF251748 GQ387525
Stagonospora paludosa CBS 135088 KF251257 KF251760 –
...continued on the next page
DEMATIOPLEOSPORA FUSIFORMIS SP. NOV. FROM RUSSIA Phytotaxa 316 (3) © 2017 Magnolia Press • 243
TABLE 1. (Continued)
Species Voucher/Culture GenBank accession number
ITS LSU SSU
Stagonospora perfecta CBS 135099 KF251258 KF251761 –
Sulcispora pleurospora MFLUCC14-0995 KP271443 KP271444 KP271445
Vagicola dactylidis MFLU 15-2720 KU163657 KU163656 –
Vrystaatia aloeicola CBS 135107 KF251278 KF251781 –
Wojnowicia dactylidicola MFLUCC 13-0738 KP744469 KP684147 KP684148
Wojnowiciella eucalypti CPC 25024 KR476741 KR476774 –
Xenoseptoria neosaccardoi CBS 120.43 KF251280 KF251783 –
Abbreviation: CBS: Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures, Utrecht, The Netherlands; CPC: Culture collection of Pedro Crous, housed
at CBS; MFLU: Mae Fah Luang University Herbarium, Chiang Rai, Thailand; MFLUCC: Mae Fah Luang University Culture Collection,
Chiang Rai, Thailand.
Results
Phylogenetic analyses
The combined ITS, LSU and SSU sequence dataset comprised 58 sequences from Phaeosphaeriaceae. The tree was
rooted to Didymella exigua (Niessl) Sacc. ML and BI trees were similar in topology and did not differ significantly
(data not shown). The alignment comprised 2,269 total characters including gaps. RAxML analysis yielded a best
scoring tree (Fig. 1) with a final maximum likelihood optimization likelihood value of -14,877.362397 (Fig. 1). Our
strain of Dematiopleospora fusiformis (MFLU 15-2133) grouped with D. mariae (MFLUCC 13-0612) with 98 % ML,
1.00 BI support (Fig. 1).
Taxonomy
Dematiopleospora fusiformis S.K. Huang & K.D. Hyde, sp. nov. (Fig. 2)
Index Fungorum number: IF552576; Facesoffungi number: FoF 02724.
Etymology–The name fusiformis refers to the fusiform ascospores.
Saprobic on dead stems. Sexual morph Ascomata 190–210 × 350–400 μm ( x̄= 200 × 385 μm, n = 5), solitary
to scattered, immersed, eventually erumpent, unilocular, globose to subglobose, cupulate when dry, dark brown to
black, papillate, ostiolate. Ostiole central, short, lined with brown to hyaline periphyses. Peridium 26–45 μm diam.,
membranaceous, composed of brown to hyaline cells of textura angularis (Fig. 2e). Hamathecium comprising 2–4 μm
wide, septate, filiform pseudoparaphyses, embedded in a gelatinous matrix. Asci 134–175.5 × 14–20 μm (x̄ = 146.5
× 18 μm, n = 20), 8-spored, bitunicate, cylindrical, pedicellate, rounded at the apex, with a distinct ocular chamber.
Ascospores 36.5–42 × 6–8.5 μm (x̄ = 39 × 7.5 μm, n = 50), overlapping, initially hyaline, becoming light brown
gradually from the middle to both ends at maturity, muriform, with 5–7 transverse septate and with 0–1 vertical septum
in the central 2–4 cells, strongly constricted at the center, fusiform to subfusiform, slightly curved, smooth-walled,
with rounded and paler ends. Asexual morph: Undetermined.
Material examined:–RUSSIA, Rostov Region, Shakhty City, near 20th anniversary of Red Army Microdistrict
(47.7064983˚N, 40.2663302˚E), on the ruderal meadow near pond, on dead stems of Achillea millefolium L.
(Asteraceae), 21 May 2015, T.S. Bulgakov (MFLU 15-2133, holotype), ibid. (HKAS96353, isotype).
Key to species of Dematiopleospora based on the sexual morph
1. Ostiole without setae, ascospores with rounded ends ........................................................................................................................2
1. Ostiole comprising light brown setae, ascospores with narrower ends ..............................................................................................3
2. Uniseriate ascospores with less than 4 transverse septa3 .........................................................................Dematiopleospora alliariae
2. Overlapping biseriate ascospores with more than 4 transverse septa2 ................................................................................D. luzulae
3. Ascospores shorter than 35 μm, yellowish brown or golden-brown ..................................................................................................4
3. Ascospores longer than 35 μm, light brown ...................................................................................................................D. fusiformis
4. Immersed ascomata, ascospores with 7 transverse septa and much longer lower part than upper part3 .................................D. cirsii
4. Superficial ascomata, ascospores with 9–10 transverse septa, and upper and lower parts of equal length1 ....................... D. mariae
1Wanasinghe et al. (2014), 2Ariyawansa et al. (2015), 3Hyde et al. (2016)
HUANG ET AL.
244 • Phytotaxa 316 (3) © 2017 Magnolia Press
FIGURE 2. Dematiopleospora fusiformis (MFLU 15-2133, holotype). a Herbarium label. b Herbarium specimen. c Appearance of
ascomata on host. d Ascoma in vertical section. e Peridium. f Ostiole. g Pseudoparaphyses. h–j Asci. k–p Ascospores. Scale bars: d = 100
µm, e–f. h–j = 50 µm, g. k–n = 20 µm.
DEMATIOPLEOSPORA FUSIFORMIS SP. NOV. FROM RUSSIA Phytotaxa 316 (3) © 2017 Magnolia Press • 245
Discussion
A novel species, Dematiopleospora fusiformis is introduced in Dematiopleospora based on morphological descriptions
coupled with phylogenetic evidence derived from a combined rRNA (ITS, LSU, SSU) sequence data. Phenotypic
characterization reveals that Dematiopleospora fusiformis is morphologically similar to Muriphaeosphaeria
galatellae, in having unilocular ascomata, with brown setae in the ostiole, cylindrical asci and light brown, fusiform,
muriform ascospores. However, this new taxon has immersed ascomata and ascospores with 5–7 transversely septa.
It is different from M. galatellae which has superficial ascomata and ascospores with 4–5 transversely septa. Our
phylogeny (Fig 1) also reflects herein a distant relationship between the two genera. Muriphaeosphaeria galatellae
is nested in between Premilcurensis senecionis and Ophiosimulans tanaceti whereas the genus Dematiopleospora
resolves in a strongly supported monophyletic clade (98%, ML/1.00, BI) with the exception of D. luzulae, and D.
alliariae whose affinities are still unclear. A very close phylogenetic affinity with high support between D. fusiformis
and D. mariae (type of Dematiopleospora) can be inferred from the outcome of the ML and BI analyses. However, the
two species are morphologically distinguishable in terms of ascospore size and number of septa. Dematiopleospora
fusiformis is characterized by having ascospores longer than 35 μm with 5–7 transverse septa and at most 2 vertical
ones in the central cells (whereas in D. mariae, length ranges between 21–27 μm with 3–6 vertical septa) (Table
2). Dematiopleospora cirsii which is also closely related to D. fusiformis differs in having shorter ascospore length
(Table 2). To further support establishment of the new taxon as proposed by Jeewon and Hyde (2016), we delved into
nucleotide differences within the rRNA gene region. Comparison of the 455 nucleotides across the ITS regions (ITS1-
5.8S-ITS2) reveals 10 bp (2.2%) differences between D. mariae and D. fusiformis and examination of the 819 bp of
the LSU rDNA region reveals 9 bp (1.1%) differences. Dematiopleospora fusiformis is also morphologically distinct
from Dematiopleospora luzulae as the latter is characterized by ascospores with mucilaginous sheath and without light
end cells (Ariyawansa et al. 2015) and D. alliariae which have ascospores with 3–4 transverse septa and 2–4 vertical
septa (Table 2). In addition, Dematiopleospora alliariae and D. luzulae are also different in having ascospores which
are shorter than 20 μm with different shape (Table 2).
Our molecular based phylogeny also highlights some peculiar taxonomic disparities among species within
Dematiopleospora. This genus undoubtedly fits within the family Phaeosphaeriaceae as circumscribed by Wanasinghe
et al. (2014), Phukhamsakda et al. (2015), Ariyawansa et al. (2015) and Hyde et al. (2016). However the affinities
of D. alliariae and D. luzulae are rather ambiguous. The latter two species are phylogenetically distinct from the
other Dematiopleospora species which constitute a strongly supported monophyletic clade. In particular, D. alliariae
is an independent taxon basal to Nodulosphaeria with no support (Fig 1). The affinities of this species to other
Dematiopleospora species receive no support in other studies as well (e.g Ariyawansa et al. 2015, Hyde et al. 2016).
Similarly, D. luzulae, which was introduced as a second species with peculiar muriform ascospores, constitutes an
independent lineage with no Bayesian support values and phylogenetically distinct from all other species. Ariyawansa
et al. (2015) reported a presumable affinity with D. mariae but with no bootstrap support and a phylogenetic association
between those two species could only be an artifact of taxon sampling at that point in time. So far, only these two species
in this genus are characterized by the absence of setae in the ostiole as well as in the shape of the end of the ascospores.
Could these morphs possibly be regarded as reliable phylogenetic indicators? It is also noted that the relationships of
D. mariae with other Phaeosphaeriaceae species are unresolved despite a close affinity to Nodulosphaeria modesta
as reported by Phukhamsakda et al (2015). The latter also postulated that further taxonomic sampling is warranted to
clarify taxonomic relationships while describing the new genus, Muriphaeosphaeria and its affinities to D. mariae.
Taking into account previous studies, this study provides new insights into the phylogenetic relationships of commonly
accepted Dematiopleospora species and supports Phukhamsakda et al (2015) assumptions that more taxa could shed
more light into the taxonomy of Dematiopleospora. Wanasinghe et al. (2014) reported an association of D. mariae with
Entodesmium rude while Phukhamsakda et al (2015) demonstrated an affinity to Nodulosphaeria modesta and noted
that Muriphaeosphaeria galatellae was related to Entodesmium rude and not D. mariae. With more taxa, Ariyawansa
et al. (2015) and Hyde et al. (2016) also noted a slight phylogenetic resolution within species of Dematiopleospora and
in particular a well-supported relationship between D. mariae and D. cirsii. A similar phylogenetic scenario is reported
herein with the inclusion of our new taxon, D. fusiformis. Given that analyses of our concatenated dataset consistently
supports a strongly supported monophyletic clade of D. mariae, D. cirsii and D. fusiformis, we reckon that these could
be considered as Dematiopleospora sensu stricto.
HUANG ET AL.
246 • Phytotaxa 316 (3) © 2017 Magnolia Press
TABLE 2. Morphological comparison between Dematiopleospora species.
Specie Ascomatal size
(high × diam. µm)
Asci (high × diam.
µm)
Ascospores Host/Locality Literature
Size (high ×
diam. µm)
Colour Shape Number of
transversely
septa
Number
of vertical
septa
Dematiopleospora
mariae
150–210 × 200–300
superficial, broadly
oblong and flattened
80–100 × 11–17
cylindrical to
cylindric-clavate
21–27 × 7–9 yellowish-
brown
ellipsoidal to
subfusiform, slightly
curved, with rounded
ends, without
mucilaginous sheath
5–9 3–6 dead branches of
Ononis spinosa
Italy
Wanasinghe et al.
2014
Dematiopleospora
luzulae
140–160 × 175–200
immersed, globose
70–80 × 15–20
cylindric-clavate
15–20 × 7–10 brown ellipsoidal to oval,
some curved,
with narrowly
rounded ends, with
mucilaginous sheath
4–6 3–4 dead stem of
Luzula sp.
Italy
Ariyawansa et al.
2015
Dematiopleospora
alliariae
210–350 × 175–
300 immersed,
slightly erumpent,
subglobose to
pyriform
100–125 × 10–12
cylindrical
14–17.5 ×
6.4–8.4
yellowish-
brown
ellipsoidal to
fusiform, with
narrowly rounded
ends, without
mucilaginous sheath
3 0–3 (–4) dead stem of
Alliaria petiolata
Italy
Hyde et al. 2016
Dematiopleospora
cirsii
250–300 × 250–350
immersed to semi-
erumpent, broadly
oblong and flattened
80–120 × 10–14
cylindrical to
cylindric-clavate
20–30 × 6–9 golden-brown ellipsoidal to
subfusiform, slightly
curved, with rounded
ends, without
mucilaginous sheath
6–7 1 dead branches of
Cirsium sp.
Italy
Hyde et al. 2016
Dematiopleospora
fusiformis
190–210 × 350–
400 immersed,
eventually
erumpent, globose
to subglobose
134–175.5 × 14–20
cylindrical
36.5–42 ×
6–8.5
light brown
gradually
from the
middle to
both ends
fusiform to
subfusiform, with
rounded ends,
slightly curved
5–7 0–1
vertical
septum in
the central
2–4 cells
dead stems
of Achillea
millefolium
Russia
This paper
DEMATIOPLEOSPORA FUSIFORMIS SP. NOV. FROM RUSSIA Phytotaxa 316 (3) © 2017 Magnolia Press • 247
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the grants of National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants Nos. 31460011 & 30870009)
and the agricultural science and technology foundation of Guizhou province, China (Grant No. NY[2013]3042). We
would like to thank Qi Zhao, Jian Kui Liu and Anusha H. Ekanayaka for their help in data analysis.
References
Abd-Elsalam, K., Tibpromma, S., Wanasinghe, D.N., Camporesi, E. & Hyde, K.D. (2016) Equiseticola gen. nov. (Phaeosphaeriaceae),
from Equisetum sp. in Italy. Phytotaxa 284 (3): 169–180.
http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.284.3.2
Ariyawansa, H.A., Hyde, K.D., Jayasiri, S.C., Buyck, B., Chethana, K.W.T., Dai, D.Q., Dai, Y.C., Daranagama, D.A., Jayawardena,
R.S., Lücking, R., Ghobad-Nejhad, M., Niskanen, T., Thambugala, K.M., Voigt, K., Zhao, R.L., Li, G.J., Doilom, M., Boonmee,
S., Yang, Z.L., Cai, Q., Cui, Y.Y., Bahkali, A.H., Chen, J., Cui, B.K., Chen, J.J., Dayarathne, M.C., Dissanayake, A.J., Ekanayaka,
A.H., Hashimoto, A., Hongsanan, S., Jones, E.B.G., Larsson, E., Li, W.J., Li, Q.R., Liu, J.K., Luo, Z.L., Maharachchikumbura,
S.S.N., Mapook, A., McKenzie, E.H.C., Norphanphoun, C., Konta, S., Pang, K.L., Perera, R.H., Phookamsak, R., Phukhamsakda,
C., Pinruan, U., Randrianjohany, E., Singtripop, C., Tanaka, K., Tian, C.M., Tibpromma, S., Abdel-Wahab, M.A., Wanasinghe, D.N.,
Wijayawardene, N.N., Zhang, J.F., Zhang, H., Abdel-Aziz, F.A., Wedin, M., Westberg, M., Ammirati, J.F., Bulgakov, T.S., Lima,
D.X., Callaghan, T.M., Callac, P., Chang, C.H., Coca, L.F., Dal-Forno, M., Dollhofer, V., Fliegerová, K., Greiner, K., Griffith, G.W.,
Ho, H.M., Hofstetter, V., Jeewon, R., Kang, J.C., Wen, T.C., Kirk, P.M., Kytövuori, I., Lawrey, J.D., Xing, J., Li, H., Liu, Z.Y.,
Liu, X.Z., Liimatainen, K., Lumbsch, H.T., Matsumura, M., Moncada, B., Nuankaew, S., Parnmen, S., Santiago, A.L.C.M.D.A.,
Sommai, S., Song, Y., de Souza, C.A.F., de Souza-Motta, C.M., Su, H.Y., Suetrong, S., Wang, Y., Fong, W.S., Yuan, H.S., Zhou,
L.W., Réblová, M., Fournier, J., Camporesi, E., Luangsa-ard, J.J., Tasanathai, K., Khonsanit, A., Thanakitpipattana, D., Somrithipol,
S., Diederich, P., Millanes, A.M., Common, R.S., Stadler, M., Yan, J.Y., Li, X.H., Lee, H.W., Nguyen, T.T.T., Lee, H.B., Battistin,
E., Marsico, O., Vizzini, A., Vila, J., Ercole, E., Eberhardt, U., Simonini, G., Wen, H.A. & Chen, X.H. (2015) Fungal diversity notes
111–252—taxonomic and phylogenetic contributions to fungal taxa. Fungal Diversity 75: 27–274.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-015-0346-5
Arzanlou, M. & Crous, P.W. (2006) Phaeosphaeriopsis musae. Fungal Planet 9.
Chomnunti, P., Hongsanan, S., Aguirre-Hudson, B., Tian, Q., Peršoh, D., Dhami, M.K., Alias, A.S., Xu, J.C., Liu, X.Z., Stadler, M. &
Hyde, K.D. (2014) The sooty moulds. Fungal Diversity 66: 1–36.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-014-0278-5
Hall, T. (1999) BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids
Symposium Series 41: 95–98.
Huelsenbeck, J.P. & Ronquist, F. (2001) MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 17: 754–755.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/17.8.754
Hyde, K.D., Hongsanan, S., Jeewon, R., Bhat, D.J., McKenzie, E.H.C., Jones, E.B.G., Phookamsak, R., Ariyawansa, H.A., Bahkali,
A.H., Boonmee, S., Zhao, Q., Abdel-Aziz, F.A., Abdel-Wahab, M.A., Banmai, S., Chomnunti, P., Cui, B.K., Daranagama, D.A.,
Das, K., Dayarathne, M.C., de Silva, N.I., Dissanayake, A.J., Doilom, M., Ekanayaka, A.H., Gibertoni, T.B., Góes-Neto, A., Huang,
S.K., Jayasiri, S.C., Jayawardena, R.S., Konta, S., Lee, H.B., Li, W.J., Lin, C.G., Liu, J.K., Lu, Y.Z., Luo, Z.L., Manawasinghe,
I.S., Manimohan, P., Mapook, A., Niskanen, T., Norphanphoun, C., Papizadeh, M., Perera, R.H., Phukhamsakda, C., Richter, C.,
de Santiago, A.L.C.M.A., Drechsler-Santos, E.R., Senanayake, I.C., Tanaka, K., Tennakoon, T.M.D.S., Thambugala, K.M., Tian,
Q., Tibpromma, S., Thongbai, B., Vizzini, A., Wanasinghe, D.N., Wijayawardene, N.N., Wu, H.X., Yang, J., Zeng, X.Y., Zhang,
H., Zhang, J.F., Bulgakov, T.S., Camporesi, E., Amoozegar, M.A., Araujo-Neta, L.S., Ammirati, J.F., Baghela, A., Bhatt, R.P.,
Bojantchev, D., Buyck, B., da Silva, G.A., de Lima, C.L.F., de Oliveira, R.J.V., de Souza, C.A.F., Dai, Y.C., Dima, B., Duong, T.T.,
Ercole, E., Mafalda-Freire, F., Ghosh, A., Hashimoto, A., Kamolhan, S., Kang, J.C., Karunarathna, S.C., Chethana, T., Kirk, P.M.,
Kytövuori, I., Lantieri, A., Liimatainen, K., Liu, Z.Y., Liu, X.Z., Lücking, R., Medardi, G., Mortimer, P.E., Nguyen, T.T.T., Raj,
K.N.A., Reck, M.A., Lumyong, S., Shahzadeh-Fazeli, S.A., Stadler, M., Soudi, M.R., Su, H.Y., Takahashi, T., Tangthirasunun, N.,
Uniyal, P., Wang, Y., Wen, T.C., Xu, J.C., Zhang, Z.K., Zhao, Y.C., Zhou, J.L., Zhu, L., Promputtha, I. & Lumyong, S. (2016) Fungal
diversity notes 367–492: taxonomic and phylogenetic contributions to fungal taxa. Fungal Diversity 78: 1–270.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-016-0373-x
Index Fungorum (2017) Available from: http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/Names.asp (accessed on November 2016)
Jayasiri, S.C., Hyde, K.D., Ariyawansa, H.A., Bhat, J., Buyck, B., Cai, L., Dai, Y.C., Abd-Elsalam, K.A., Ertz, D., Hidayat, I., Jeewon,
HUANG ET AL.
248 • Phytotaxa 316 (3) © 2017 Magnolia Press
R., Jones, E.B.G., Bahkali, A.H., Karunarathna, S.C., Liu, J.K., Luangsa-ard, J.J., Lumbsch, H.T., Maharachchikumbura, S.S.N.,
McKenzie, E.H.C., Moncalvo, J.M., GhobadNejhad, M., Nilsson, H., Pang, K.L., Pereira, O.L., Phillips, A.J.L., Raspé, O., Rollins,
A.W., Romero, A.I., Etayo, J., Selçuk, F., Stephenson, S.L., Suetrong, S., Taylor, J.E., Tsui, C.K.M., Vizzini, A., Abdel-Wahab,
M.A., Wen, T.C., Boonmee, S., Dai, D.Q., Daranagama, D.A., Dissanayake, A.J., Ekanayaka, A.H., Fryar, S.C., Hongsanan, S.,
Jayawardena, R.S., Li, W.J., Perera, R.H., Phookamsak, R., de Silva, N.I., Thambugala, K.M., Tian, Q., Wijayawardene, N.N., Zhao,
R.L., Zhao, Q., Kang, J.C. & Promputtha, I. (2015) The Faces of Fungi database: fungal names linked with morphology, phylogeny
and human impacts. Fungal Diversity 74: 3–18.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-015-0351-8
Jeewon, R., Liew, E.C.Y. & Hyde, K.D. (2002) Phylogenetic relationships of Pestalotiopsis and allied genera inferred from ribosomal
DNA sequences and morphological characters. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 25: 378–392.
Jeewon, R., Liew, E.C.Y., Simpson, J.A., Hodgkiss, I.J. & Hyde, K.D. (2003) Phylogenetic significance of morphological characters in the
taxonomy of Pestalotiopsis species. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 27: 372–383.
Jeewon, R. & Hyde, K.D. (2016) Establishing species boundaries and new taxa among fungi: recommendations to resolve taxonomic
ambiguities. Mycosphere 7 (11): 1669–1677.
Katoh, K. & Standley, D.M. (2013) MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability.
Molecular Biology & Evolution 30: 772–780.
https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst010
Kirk, P., Cannon, P.F., Minter, D.W. & Stalpers, J.A. (2008) Ainsworth & Bisby’s Dictionary of the Fungi. 10th edn. CAB International,
Wallingford, UK.
Li, G.J., Hyde, K.D., Zhao, R.L., Hongsanan, S., Abdel-Aziz, F.A., Abdel-Wahab, M.A., Alvarado, P., Alves-Silva, G., Ammirati, J.F.,
Ariyawansa, H.A., Baghela, A., Bahkali, A.H., Beug, M., Bhat, D.J., Bojantchey, D., Boonpratuang, T., Bulgakov, T.S., Camporesi,
E., Boro, M.C., Ceska, O., Chakraborty, D., Chen, J.J., Chethana, K.W.T., Chomnunti, P., Consiglio, G., Cui, B.K., Dai, D.Q., Dai,
Y.C., Daranagama, D.A., Das, K., Dayarathne, M.C., Crop, E.D., Oliveira, R.J.V.D., Souza, C.A.F., Souza, J.I., Dentinger, B.T.M.,
Dissanayake, A.J., Doilom, M., Drechsler-Santos, E.R., Ghobad-Nejhad, M., Gilmore, S.P., Góes-Neto, A., Gorczak, M., Haitjema,
C.H., Hapuarachchi, K.K., Hashimoto, A., He, M.Q., Henske, J.K., Hirayama, K., Iribarren, M.J., Javasiri, S.C., Jayawardena, R.S.,
Jeon, S.J., Jerônimo, G.H., Jesus, A.L., Jones, E.B.G., Kang, J.C., Karunarathna, S.C., Kirk, P.M., Konta, S., Kuhnert, E., Langer,
E., Lee, H.S., Lee, H.B., Li, W.J., Li, X.H., Liimatainen, K., Lima, D.X., Lin, C.G., Liu, J.K., Liu, X.Z., Liu, Z.Y., Luangsa-ard,
J.J., Lücking, R., Lumbsch, H.T., Lumyong, S., Leaño, E.M., Marano, A.V., Matsumura, M., McKenzie, E.H.C., Mongkolsamrit,
S., Nguyen, T.T.T., Niskanen, T., Norphanphoun, C., O’Malley, M.A., Parnmen, S., Pawlowska, J., Perera, R.H., Phookamsak, R.,
Phukhamsakda, C., Pires-Zottarelli, C.L.A., Raspé, O., Reck, M.A., Rocha, S.C.O., Santiago, A.L.C.M.A., Senanayake, I.C., Setti,
L., Shang, Q.J., Singh, S.K., Sir, E.B., Solomon, K.V., Song, J., Srikitikulchai, P., Stadler, M., Suetrong, S., Takahashi, H., Takahashi,
T., Tanaka, K., Tang, L.P., Thambugala, K.M., Thanakitpipattana, D., Theodorou, M.K., Thongbai, B., Thummarukcharoen, T., Tian,
Q., Tibpromma, S., Verbeken, A., Vizzini, A., Vlasák, J., Voigt, K., Wanasinghe, D.N., Wang, Y., Weerakoon, G., Wen, H.A., Wen,
T.C., Wijayawardene, N.N., Wonganoun, S., Wrzosek, M., Xiao, Y.P., Xu, J.C., Yan, J.Y., Yang, J., Yang, S.D., Hu, Y., Zhang, J.F.,
Zhao, J., Zhou, L.W., Peršoh, D., Phillips, A.J.L. & Maharachchikumbura, S.S.N. (2016) Fungal diversity notes 253–366: taxonomic
and phylogenetic contributions to fungal taxa. Fungal Diversity 78: 1–237.
Nylander, J.A.A., Wilgenbusch, J.C., Warren, D.L. & Swofford, D.L. (2008) AWTY (are we there yet?): a system for graphical exploration
of MCMC convergence in Bayesian phylogenetics. Bioinformatics 24: 581–583.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btm388
Phookamsak, R., Liu, J.K., McKenzie, E.H.C., Manamgoda, D.S., Ariyawansa, H., Thambugala, K.M., Dai, D.Q., Camporesi, E.,
Chukeatirote, E., Wijayawardene, N.N., Bahkali, A.H., Mortimer, P.E., Xu, J.C. & Hyde, K.D. (2014) Revision of Phaeosphaeriaeae.
Fungal Diversity 68: 159–238.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-014-0308-3
Phukhamsakda, C., Ariyawansa, H.A., Phookamsak R., Chomnunti P., Bulgakov T.S., Yang J.B., Bhat D.J., Bahkali A.H. & Hyde, K.D.
(2015) Muriphaeosphaeria galatellae gen. et sp. nov. in Phaeosphaeriaceae (Pleosporales). Phytotaxa 227 (1): 55–65.
http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.227.1.6
Quaedvlieg, W., Verkley, G.J.M., Shin, H.D., Barreto, R.W., Alfenas, A.C., Swart, W.J., Groenewald, J.Z. & Crous, P.W. (2013) Sizing up
Septoria. Studies in Mycology 75: 307–390.
https://doi.org/10.3114/sim0017
Rannala, B. & Yang, Z. (1996) Probability distribution of molecular evolutionary trees: a new method of phylogenetic inference. Journal
of Molecular Evolution 43: 304–311.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02338839
Ronquist, F. & Huelsenbeck, J.P. (2003) MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19: 1572–
1574.
DEMATIOPLEOSPORA FUSIFORMIS SP. NOV. FROM RUSSIA Phytotaxa 316 (3) © 2017 Magnolia Press • 249
https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btg180
Schoch, C.L., Crous, P.W., Groenewald, J.Z., Boehm, E.W.A., Burgess, T.I., De Gruyter, J, de Hoog, G.S., Dixon, L.J., Grube, M.,
Gueidan, C., Harada, Y., Hatakeyama, S., Hirayama, K., Hosoya, T., Huhndorf, S.M., Hyde, K.D., Jones, E.B.G., Kohlmeyer, J.,
Kruys, A., Li, Y.M., Lucking, R., Lumbsch, H.T., Marvanova, L., Mbatchou, J.S., McVay, A.H., Miller, A.N., Mugambi, G.K.,
Muggia, L., Nelsen, M.P., Nelson, P, Owensby, C.A., Phillips, A.J., Phongpaichit, S., Pointing, S.B., Pujade-Renaud, V., Raja, H.A.,
Plata, E.R., Robbertse, B., Ruibal, C., Sakayaroj, J., Sano, T., Selbmann, L., Shearer, C.A., Shirouzu, T., Slippers, B., Suetrong, S.,
Tanaka, K., Volkmann-Kohlmeyer, B., Wingfield, M.J., Wood, A.R., Woudenberg, J.H., Yonezawa, H., Zhang, Y. & Spatafora, J.W.
(2009) A class-wide phylogenetic assessment of Dothideomycetes. Studies in Mycology 64: 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.3114/sim.2009.64.01
Schoch, C.L., Shoemaker, R.A., Seifert, K.A., Hambleton, S., Spatafora, J.W. & Crous, P.W. (2006) A multigene phylogeny of the
Dothideomycetes using four nuclear loci. Mycologia 98: 1041–1052.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15572536.2006.11832632
Shoemaker, R.A. & Babcock, C.E. (1984) Phaeosphaeria. Canadian Journal of Botany 67: 1500–1599.
https://doi.org/10.1139/b89-199
Stamatakis, A. (2014) RAxML Version 8: A tool for Phylogenetic Analysis and Post-Analysis of Large Phylogenies. Bioinformatics 33:
1312–1313.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu033
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.
https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.172.8.4238-4246.1990
Wanasinghe, D.N., Jones, E.B.G., Camporesi, E., Boonmee, S., Karunarathna, S.C., Thines, M., Mortimer, P.E., Xu, J.C. & Hyde, K.D.
(2014) Dematiopleospora mariae gen. sp. nov., from Ononis spinosa in Italy. Cryptogamie. Mycologie 35 (2): 105–117.
https://doi.org/10.7872/crym.v35.iss2.2014.105
White, T.J., Bruns, T., Lee, S. & Taylor, J. (1990) Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics.
In: Innis, M.A., Gelfand, D.H., Sninsky, J.J., White, T.J. (Eds.) PCR protocols: a guide to methods and applications. Academic Press,
San Diego, pp. 315–322.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-372180-8.50042-1
Wijayawardene, D.N.N., Crous, P.W., Kirk, P.M., Hawksworth, D.L., Boonmee, S., Braun, U., Chomnunti, P., Dai, D.Q., D’souza, M.J.,
Diederich, P., Dissanayake, A., Doilom, M., Hongsanan, S., Jones, E.B.G., Groenewald, J.Z., Jayawardena, R., Lawrey, J.D., Liu,
J.K., Lücking, R., Madrid, H., Manamgoda, D.S., Muggia, L., Nelsen, M.P., Phookamsak, R., Suetrong, S., Tanaka, K., Thambugala,
K.M., Wikee, S., Zhang, Y., Aptroot, A., Ariyawansa, H.A., Bahkali, A.H., Bhat, J.D., Gueidan, C., De-Hoog, G.S., Knudsen, K.,
Mckenzie, E.H.C., Miller, A.N., Mortimer, P.E., Wanasinghe, D.N., Phillips, A.J.L., Raja, H.A., Slippers, B., Shivas, R.S., Taylor, J.E.,
Wang, Y., Woudenberg, J.H.C., Piątek, M., Cai, L., Jaklitsch, W.M. & Hyde, K.D. (2014) Naming and outline of Dothideomycetes
(2014) including proposals for the protection or suppression of generic names. Fungal Diversity 69: 1–55.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-014-0309-2
Wijayawardene, N.N., Camporesi, E., Song, Y., Dai, D.Q., Bhat, D.J., Mckenzie, E.H.C., Chukeatirote, E., Mel’nik, V.A., Wang, Y. & Hyde,
K.D. (2013) Multigene analyses reveal taxonomic placement of Scolicosporium minkeviciusiiin Phaeosphaeriaceae (Pleosporales).
Cryptogamie. Mycologie 34 (4): 357–366.
https://doi.org/10.7872/crym.v34.iss2.2013.357
Zeiders, K.E. (1975) Stagonospora foliicola a pathogen of reed canarygrass spray-irrigated with municipal sewage effluent. Plant Disease
Reporter 59: 779–783.
Zhang, Y., Crous, P.W., Schoch, C.L. & Hyde, K.D. (2012) Pleosporales. Fungal Diversity 53: 1–221.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-011-0117-x
Zhang, Y., Schoch, C.L., Fournier, J., Crous, P.W., De Gruyter, J., Woudenberg, J.H.C., Hirayama, K., Tanaka, K., Pointing, S.B., Spatafora,
J.W. & Hyde, K.D. (2009) Multi-locus phylogeny of Pleosporales: a taxonomic, ecological and evolutionary reevaluation. Studies
in Mycology 64: 85–102.
https://doi.org/10.3114/sim.2009.64.04
Zhaxybayeva, O. & Gogarten, J.P. (2002) Bootstrap, Bayesian probability and maximum likelihood mapping: exploring new tools for
comparative genome analyses. BMC Genom 3 (1): 4.
