Phylogeny, Global Biogeography and Pleomorphism of Zanclospora

Abstract

Zanclospora (Chaetosphaeriaceae) is a neglected, phialidic dematiaceous hyphomycete with striking phenotypic heterogeneity among its species. Little is known about its global biogeography due to its extreme scarcity and lack of records verified by molecular data. Phylogenetic analyses of six nuclear loci, supported by phenotypic data, revealed Zanclospora as highly polyphyletic, with species distributed among three distantly related lineages in Sordariomycetes. Zanclospora is a pleomorphic genus with multiple anamorphic stages, of which phaeostalagmus-like and stanjehughesia-like are newly discovered. The associated teleomorphs were previously classified in Chaetosphaeria. The generic concept is emended, and 17 species are accepted, 12 of which have been verified with DNA sequence data. Zanclospora thrives on decaying plant matter, but it also occurs in soil or as root endophytes. Its global diversity is inferred from metabarcoding data and published records based on field observations. Phylogenies of the environmental ITS1 and ITS2 sequences derived from soil, dead wood and root samples revealed seven and 15 phylotypes. The field records verified by DNA data indicate two main diversity centres in Australasia and Caribbean/Central America. In addition, environmental ITS data have shown that Southeast Asia represents a third hotspot of Zanclospora diversity. Our data confirm that Zanclospora is a rare genus.

Full text





Microorganisms2021,9,706.https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9040706www.mdpi.com/journal/microorganisms
Article
Phylogeny,GlobalBiogeographyandPleomorphism
ofZanclospora
MartinaRéblová
1,
*,MiroslavKolařík
2
,JanaNekvindová
3
,AndrewN.Miller
4

andMargaritaHernández‐Restrepo
5

1
DepartmentofTaxonomy,InstituteofBotany,TheCzechAcademyofSciences,
25243Průhonice,CzechRepublic
2
LaboratoryofFungalGeneticsandMetabolism,InstituteofMicrobiology,TheCzechAcademyofSciences,
14220Prague4,CzechRepublic;mkolarik@biomed.cas.cz
3
DepartmentofClinicalBiochemistryandDiagnostics,UniversityHospitalHradecKrálové,
50005HradecKrálové,CzechRepublic;nekvindova@fnhk.cz
4
IllinoisNaturalHistorySurvey,UniversityofIllinoisUrbana‐Champaign,Champaign,IL61820,USA;
amiller7@illinois.edu
5
WesterdijkFungalBiodiversityInstitute,3508ADUtrecht,TheNetherlands;m.hernandez@wi.knaw.nl
*Correspondence:martina.reblova@ibot.cas.cz
Abstract:Zanclospora(Chaetosphaeriaceae)isaneglected,phialidicdematiaceoushyphomycete
withstrikingphenotypicheterogeneityamongitsspecies.Littleisknownaboutitsglobalbiogeog‐
raphyduetoitsextremescarcityandlackofrecordsverifiedbymoleculardata.Phylogeneticanal‐
ysesofsixnuclearloci,supportedbyphenotypicdata,revealedZanclosporaashighlypolyphyletic,
withspeciesdistributedamongthreedistantlyrelatedlineagesinSordariomycetes.Zanclosporaisa
pleomorphicgenuswithmultipleanamorphicstages,ofwhichphaeostalagmus‐likeandstan‐
jehughesia‐likearenewlydiscovered.Theassociatedteleomorphswerepreviouslyclassifiedin
Chaetosphaeria.Thegenericconceptisemended,and17speciesareaccepted,12ofwhichhavebeen
verifiedwithDNAsequencedata.Zanclosporathrivesondecayingplantmatter,butitalsooccurs
insoilorasrootendophytes.Itsglobaldiversityisinferredfrommetabarcodingdataandpublished
recordsbasedonfieldobservations.PhylogeniesoftheenvironmentalITS1andITS2sequences
derivedfromsoil,deadwoodandrootsamplesrevealedsevenand15phylotypes.Thefieldrecords
verifiedbyDNAdataindicatetwomaindiversitycentresinAustralasiaandCaribbean/Central
America.Inaddition,environmentalITSdatahaveshownthatSoutheastAsiarepresentsathird
hotspotofZanclosporadiversity.OurdataconfirmthatZanclosporaisararegenus.
Keywords:Chaetosphaeriales;conidiogenesis;geographicdistribution;GlobalFungi;lifecycle;mo‐
lecularsystematics;taxonomicnovelties;newtypification

1.Introduction
Zanclospora[1],typifiedwithZ.novae‐zelandiae,wasestablishedfordematiaceoushy‐
phomycetesobservedonplantlitterordecayingwoodandbarkandcharacterisedby
setiformconidiophores,discretephialidesarrangedinwhorlsandhyaline,unicellular,
non‐setulateconidiainslimymassesenvelopingtheconidiophores[2–10].However,the
morphologicalcharactersofconidiophores,phialidesandconidiavaryamongspecies
andcontributetothephenotypicheterogeneityofthegenus.Conidiophoresaresimpleor
branched,occasionallyaccompaniedbysetae,branchesarefertile,resemblingthemain
stalkwithsecondaryandtertiarybranchesoftendeveloped,ortheyaresterileandseti‐
form,insertedintothemainstalk.Conidiogenouscellsareeithertightlyappressedtothe
conidiophoreinmultiplewhorlsformingacompactfertilezoneordivergentinseveral
loosewhorls.Phialidespossessindistinctorwell‐defined,flaredtotubularcollarettes.The
Citation:Réblová,M.;Kolařík,M.;
Nekvindová,J.;Miller,A.N.;Her‐
nández‐Restrepo,M.Phylogeny,
GlobalBiogeographyandPleo‐
morphismofZanclospora.Microor‐
g
anisms2021,9,706.https://doi.org/
10.3390/microorganisms9040706
AcademicEditor:

Dea
Garcia‐Hermoso
Received:13February2021
Accepted:24March2021
Published:29March2021
Publisher’sNote:MDPIstaysneu‐
tralwithregardtojurisdictional
claimsinpublishedmapsandinsti‐
tutionalaffiliations.

Copyright:©2021bytheauthors.Li‐
censeeMDPI,Basel,Switzerland.
Thisarticleisanopenaccessarticle
distributedunderthetermsandcon‐
ditionsoftheCreativeCommonsAt‐
tribution(CCBY)license(http://crea‐
tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Microorganisms2021,9,7062of60


conidialshapevariesfromfalcate,obovoidtobacilliform.Theteleomorph‐anamorphcon‐
nectionhasbeenestablishedforonlytwospecies,bothwithateleomorphattributedto
Chaetosphaeria,namelytheZ.brevisporaanamorphofCh.brevispora[11]andZanclosporasp.
anamorphofCh.lateriphiala[12].
Todate,tenspeciesandtwovarietieswereintroducedinZanclospora[1–10],butlittle
isknownaboutthesystematicplacement,relationshipsandglobalgeographicaldistribu‐
tionofthesetaxa.Moreover,thegenusisunder‐representedinculturecollections.Using
moleculardata,Fernándezetal.[13]andHernández‐Restrepoetal.[9]confirmedthe
placementofZ.ibericaandCh.lateriphialaintheChaetosphaeriaceae.Zanclosporaissimilar
toCryptophiale[14,15],Cryptophialoidea[16],andKionochaeta[17]inhavingpigmentedco‐
nidiophoreswithasetiformextension,lateralphialidesusuallyarrangedinfertilezones
andhyalineconidia.Ourobservationsindicatethatconidialstructuressimilartotwo
dematiaceoushyphomycetegenera,Stanjehughesia[18]andPhaeostalagmus[19],canoccur
onanaturalsubstrateandinculture.
AlthoughthereareonlyafewpublishedrecordsofZanclospora,Z.novae‐zelandiae
seemstobeanexceptiontotherule.IntheprotologueofZ.novae‐zelandiae[1],conidia
werereportedwitharelativelylargerangeoflengths,18–35μmlong.Ontheotherhand,
thespecimenslistedbytheseauthors[1]sharedthesamemorphologicaldiagnosticchar‐
acterssuchascolourlessdisk‐likeexcrescencesontheuppersetiformpartofconidio‐
phoresandbranches,branchedconidiophoresandfalcateconidia.However,thelarge
rangeofconidiallengthsprovidedanopportunitytoexpandthespeciesconceptfurther,
andthepublishedmorphologicalprofilesofZ.novae‐zelandiaevaryconsiderably.Several
authors[8,20–23]reportedZ.novae‐zelandiaefromdifferentgeographicalregionswitha
variableconidiallengthandintroducedotherfeatures.Theconidiophorewalllackedor‐
namentation,andsomecollectionscontaineduniformlyunbranchedconidiophores.
ThesedifferencesmayindicatecrypticspecieswithinZ.novae‐zelandiaeorhighintraspe‐
cificvariability.Unfortunately,DNAsequencedataofZ.novae‐zelandiaearenotavailable
toprovideanswerstothesehypotheses.
OurknowledgeaboutthebiogeographyofZanclosporaisfragmentaryduetothelack
ofrecordsverifiedbymoleculardataanditsextremescarcity.Publisheddataofmembers
ofZanclosporasuggestaworldwidegeographicaldistribution.Specieswererecordedfrom
thetropicsofBrazil,Brunei,Cuba,India,Ecuador,IvoryCoast,Kenya,Nigeria,Sey‐
chelles,TaiwanandVietnam,butalsofromthetemperateandsubtropicalclimatezones
oftheSouthernandNorthernHemispheresinJapan,NewZealand,SouthAfrica,Spain
andtheUSA[1–12,20–28].Almostallpublishedrecordswerefromdecayingbarkand
wood,lessoftenfromfallenleaves,andwereobtainedbydirectobservationonnatural
substrates.Thus,itisunknownifthesefungialsooccurinrelatedsubstratessuchassoil
orhealthyplanttissues(asendophytes),wheretheyremainoverlookedduetotheirslow
growthincultureandrarity.
Todate,researchofgeographicdistributionpatternsoffungihasreliedheavilyon
publicnucleotidesequencedatabasessuchasNCBIGenBank[29]andUNITE[30],which
enableblasting(BLASTnsearch)[31]againstfungalbarcodesgeneratedbySangertech‐
nology.DataminingofDNAbarcodesisespeciallyhelpfulforbiogeographyanddiver‐
sitystudiesofabundantandgloballydistributedtaxae.g.[32].However,mostofthebar‐
codesequencesgeneratedsofarcomefrommassivelyparallelsequencingtechnologies,
whosedatahavebeenstoredinvariouspublicrepositories,notallowingforeasydata
mininginmultiplestudies.Asaresult,anybiogeographicevaluationislaboriousand
limitedtoasmallnumberofsourcedatasets[33].Thisgaphasrecentlybeenfilledbythe
creationoftheGlobalFungidatabaseoffungalITSdata[34,35]collectedfromterrestrial
biomesofsoil,deadorliveplantmaterial.Suchatoolisparticularlyusefulforstudying
membersoftheChaetosphaeriaceae,whichareusuallylessabundantandinhabitsub‐
stratescoveredbyGlobalFungi.
ThisstudyaimstoassessthesystematicplacementofZanclosporaandinvestigatein‐
traspecificandinterspecificvariabilityofitsmembersbyusingcomparativemorphology

Microorganisms2021,9,7063of60


onnaturalsubstratesandinculturealongwithphylogeneticanalyses.Otherobjectives
includethedescriptionandexperimentalverificationofteleomorph‐anamorphconnec‐
tionsandanamorphicphenotypes,andthedeterminationofgeographicaldistribution
andecologyofspeciesofZanclospora.
2.MaterialsandMethods
2.1.FungalStrains
Duringourstudy,wegatheredseveralZanclosporainhabitingdecayingplantmate‐
rialinvariouslocalitiesfromthesouthtemperateclimatezoneofNewZealand,andnorth
temperateclimatezoneofEuropeinPortugalandSpain,andNorthAmericaintheUSA.
OtherspecimenswereobtainedfromtheFungariumoftheIllinoisNaturalHistorySurvey
(ILLS,Champaign,IL,USA)andNewZealandFungarium(PDD,Auckland,NewZea‐
land).HolotypesandspecimenscollectedinthisstudyweredepositedatCBS,ILLSand
PDD(asdriedvoucherspecimensordriedcultures).
Axeniccultureswerederivedfromfreshlycollectedmaterial(seeSection2.2).Addi‐
tionalcultureswereobtainedfromBCCM/MUCLAgro‐foodandEnvironmentalFungal
Collection(MUCL,UniversitéCatholiquedeLouvain,Louvain,Belgium),theInterna‐
tionalCollectionofMicroorganismsfromPlants(ICMP,Auckland,NewZealand)and
WesterdijkFungalBiodiversityInstitute(CBS,Utrecht,TheNetherlands).Representative
strainsandex‐typestrainsisolatedfromourcollectionsweredepositedatCBSandICMP.
Isolates,theirsourcesandGenBankaccessionnumbersofsequencesgeneratedinthis
studyarelistedinTable1.FungalnoveltieswereregisteredinMycoBank.
2.2.MorphologicalAnalysis
Morphologicalcharacteristics,i.e.anamorphic,synanamorphicandteleomorphic,
wereacquiredfromfungigrowingonnaturalsubstratesandinculture.Ascomata,conid‐
iophoresandconidiafromthenaturalsubstrateswererehydratedwithtapwaterandex‐
aminedwithanOlympusSZX12dissectingmicroscope(OlympusAmerica,Inc.,Melville,
NY,USA,).Hand‐sectionedascomata,asci,ascosporesandparaphyses,andconidio‐
phoresandconidiaweremountedin90%lacticacid,waterorMelzer’sreagent.Measure‐
mentsweretakeninMelzer’sreagent.Means±standarddeviation(SD)basedonamini‐
mumof20–25measurementsweregivenforsizesofasci,ascosporesandconidia.Micro‐
scopicstructureswereexaminedusinganOlympusBX51compoundmicroscopewith
differentialinterferencecontrast(DIC)andphase‐contrast(PC)illumination.Imagesof
microscopicstructureswerecapturedwithanOlympusDP70cameraoperatedbyImag‐
ingSoftwareCell^D(Olympus).Macroscopicimagesofcoloniesweredocumentedusing
aCanonEOS77DdigitalcamerawithCanonEF100mmf/2.8LMacroISUSMobjective
(CanonEuropeLtd.,Middlesex,UK)withdaylightspectrum5500K16WLEDlights.All
imageswereprocessedwithAdobePhotoshopCS6(AdobeSystems,SanJose,CA,USA).
Singleandmultipleascosporeandconidialisolateswereobtainedfromfreshmate‐
rialwiththeaidofasingle‐sporeisolator(Meopta,Prague,Přerov,CzechRepublic)and
incubatedonwateragarorModifiedLeonian’sagar(MLA)[36]atatemperatureof20–
25°C.Strainswereinoculatedintriplicateoncornmealdextroseagar(CMD)(17gofcorn‐
mealagarOxoidLimited,UnitedKingdom,Hampshire,2gofdextrose,1Lofdistilled
water,sterilizedfor15minat121°C),MLA,oatmealagar(OA)[37]andpotato‐carrotagar
(PCA)[38].Descriptionsofcolonieswerebasedon4–6‐week‐oldculturesgrownindark‐
nessat22–23°C.Strainswerealsoinoculatedoncornmealagar(CMA)[38]andOAwith
sterilestemsofUrticadioicatoinducesporulation.


Microorganisms2021,9,7064of60


Table1.Taxa,isolateinformationandGenBankaccessionnumbersforsequences.Newsequencesdeterminedforthisstudyandtaxonomicnoveltiesaregivenbold.
TaxonStrainStatus CountryHostSubstrateGenBank
ITS28S18Stef1‐α tub2rpb2
Brachiampullaverticillata ICMP15065PNewZealandWeinmanniaracemosadeadleafMW144418MW144402MW151684MW147322—MW147336
B.verticillataICMP15993NewZealandunidentifieddeadleafMW144419MW144403MW151685MW147323—MW14733
7
ChaetosphaeriaminutaS.M.H.3396TPanamaunidentifieddecayingwoodMW144420AF466075————
KionochaetaramiferaMUCL39164,CBS193.95Cubaunidentifiedlea
f
MW144421MW144404————
SelenosporellacurvisporaCBS102623Spainunidentifieddecayingwood—MW144405MW151686——MW147338
StephanophorellastellataCBS101301,FMR6481TNigeriaunidentifieddeadleavesMH862729MH874336MW151687——MW147339
ZanclosporaaureaICMP23703,CBS147013TNewZealandunidentifieddecayingwoodMW144422MW144406—MW147324MW147343—
Z.clavulataCBS146967,FMR12186TPortugalunidentifieddecayingwoodKY853481KY853545—MW147325MW147344—
Z.falcataICMP23702,CBS147012TNewZealandunidentifieddecayingwoodMW144423MW144407MW151688MW147326MW147345MW147340
Z.ibericaCBS130426,FMR11584TSpainunidentifieddecayingwoodKY853480KY853544MW151689MW147327MW147346MW147341
Z.ibericaCBS130280,FMR11022SpainunidentifiedplantdebrisMW144424MW144408—MW147328MW147347—
Z.lateriphialaCBS147014USAunidentifieddecayingwoodMW144425MW144409—MW147329MW147348—
Z.lateriphialaILLS121427USAunidentifieddecayingwoodMW144426MW144410————
Z.lateriphialaILLS121428USAunidentifieddecayingwoodJN673039JN673039——MW147349—
Z.lateriphialaS.M.H.2629‐1TUSAunknowndecayingwood—AF466070——AF466031—
Z.lateriphialaS.M.H.3320USAunidentifieddecayingwoodMW144427AF466072——AF466033—
Z.lateriphialaS.M.H.3294USAunidentifieddecayingwoodMW144428AF466071——AF466032—
Z.novae‐zelandiaeICMP15781ENewZealandNothofagussolandri
var.cliffortioidesdecayingwoodMW144429MW144411MW151690MW147330MW147350MW147342
Z.novae‐zelandiaeICMP15112NewZealandNothofagussp.decayingwoodMW144430MW144412—MW147331MW147351—
Z.phaeostalactaICMP15137,CBS114554TNewZealandunidentifieddecayingwoodMW144431MW144413—MW147332MW147352—
Z.ramiferaICMP15127NewZealandNothofagussp.decayingwoodMW144432MW144414—MW147333MW147353—
Z.ramiferaICMP22738,CBS147101TNewZealandunidentifieddecayingwoodMW144433MW144415—MW147334MW147354—
Z.sylvaticaS.M.H.2893TPuertoRicounidentifieddecayingwoodMW144434AF279419——AF466043—
Z.tropicalisS.M.H.1267TPuertoRicounidentifieddecayingwoodMW144435MW144416——AF466044—
Z.tropicalisS.M.H.2250CostaRicaunidentifieddecayingwoodMW144436AF466080——AF466045—
Z.xylophilaICMP22737TNewZealandunidentifieddecayingwoodMW144437MW144417—MW147335MW147355—
Notes:T,E,Pdenoteex‐type,ex‐epitypeandex‐paratypestrains.

Microorganisms2021,9,7065of60


2.3.DNAExtraction,AmplificationandSangerSequencing
ProtocolsfortheDNAextractionandamplificationofsampleswithILLSandS.M.H.
prefixesfollowed[39]and[40].ProcessingofsampleswithM.R.,ICMPandCBSprefixes
followed[41,42].Othersampleswereprocessedaccordingto[9].Automatedsequencing
wascarriedoutbyEurofinsGATCBiotechSequencingService(Cologne,Germany),the
WMKeckCenterattheUniversityofIllinoisUrbana‐Champaign(Champaign,Illinois,
USA)andWesterdijkFungalBiodiversityInstitute(Utrecht,TheNetherlands).Rawse‐
quencedatawereanalysedusingSequencherv.5.4.6(GeneCodesCorp,AnnArbor,MI,
USA).
2.4.GeneMarkers,SequenceAlignmentsandPhylogeneticAnalysesofFungalStrains
Sequencesofsixgenemarkers:ITS1‐5.8S‐ITS2(ITS)ofthenuclearrRNAcistron,the
smallsubunit18SribosomalDNAgene(18S)andthelargesubunit28SribosomalDNA
gene(28S)(approximately1800basepairsatthe5′‐end),domains5–7ofthesecondlargest
subunitofRNApolymeraseII(rpb2),theintermediatesectionofthecodingregionofthe
translationelongationfactor1‐alpha(tef1‐α)andcodingandnon‐codingregionsofbeta‐
tubulin(tub2)markedbyexons2−6,wereanalysedtoassessevolutionaryrelationshipsof
Zanclosporaandsimilarfungi.GenBankaccessionnumbersforsequencesretrievedfrom
GenBankandpublishedinotherstudies[9,39,41–75]arelistedinTableS1.
SequenceswerealignedmanuallyinBioeditv.7.1.8[76]andintronswereexcluded
fromthealignments.Thesequenceswerecombinedintofourdatasetsthatwereparti‐
tionedintoITS,18S,28S,rpb2,tef1‐αandcodingandnon‐codingregionsoftub2subsets
ofnucleotidesitesforwhichweassumedrateheterogeneity.Single‐locusdatasetswere
evaluatedusingPartitionFinder2[77],implementedintheCIPRESScienceGatewayv.3.3
[78,79],tofindthebestpartitioningschemeforourdatasetsandtoselectbest‐fitmodels
undercorrectedAkaikeinformationcriteria.Conflict‐freedatasetswereconcatenated,
andfouralignments(depositedinTreeBASE)weresubjectedtosubsequentphylogenetic
analyses.
SincetherearenopreviousphylogeneticstudiesonZanclosporaandthestandarduse
ofparticularnuclearlocivaryamongfungalgroups,weconductedfourphylogenetic
analysestoassessrelationshipsofthegenus,basedonthepreliminaryresultsofthe
BLASTnsearch.ThephylogeneticanalysisofZanclosporaandmembersoftheSordari‐
omyceteswerebasedon18S,28Sandrpb2markers.TherelationshipswithintheChaeto‐
sphaeriaceaewereassessedwiththeITSand28Ssequences.Theintraspecificrelation‐
shipsofZanclosporawereevaluatedwithITS,28S,tef1‐αandtub2genes,andthephyloge‐
neticanalysisoftwoZanclosporastrainswithaffinitytotheXylarialeswereassessedinthe
analysisofthecombinedITS,28S,tef1‐αandrpb2sequences.
PhylogeneticreconstructionswereperformedusingBayesianInference(BI)and
MaximumLikelihood(ML)analysesthroughtheCIPRESScienceGatewayv.3.3.MLanal‐
yseswereconductedwithRAXML‐HPCv.8.2.12[80]withaGTRCATapproximation.
Nodalsupportwasdeterminedbynon‐parametricbootstrapping(BS)with1000repli‐
cates.BIanalyseswereperformedinalikelihoodframeworkasimplementedinMrBayes
v.3.2.6[81].TwoBayesiansearcheswereperformedusingdefaultparameters.TheB‐
MCMCMCanalyseslasteduntiltheaveragestandarddeviationofsplitfrequencieswas
below0.01withtreessavedevery1000generations.Thefirst25%ofsavedtrees,repre‐
sentingtheburn‐inphaseoftheanalysis,werediscarded.Theremainingtreeswereused
forcalculatingposteriorprobabilities(PP)ofrecoveredbranches.TheBIandMLphylo‐
genetictreeswerecomparedvisuallyforatopologicalconflictamongsupportedclades.
HistogramsofintraspecificandinterspecificdistancesofZanclosporas.str.werecre‐
atedforeachofthefourmarkers(ITS,28S,tef1‐α,andtub2)usedinthephylogeneticanal‐
ysesinordertoillustratetheamountofoverlapforeachgene.Matrixofpairwisedistances
wascomputedwithMEGAX[82]usingtheKimuratwoparameters(K2P)model,andthe

Microorganisms2021,9,7066of60


histogramwasplottedinGraphPrism7.03software(GraphpadSoftwareInc.,USA,Cali‐
fornia,LaJolla)usingabinsizeof0.001.
2.5.PhylogenyofEnvironmentalSequencesandBiogeography
Initially,theinterspeciesgeneticdistance(p‐dist)wascalculatedforITS1andITS2
datasetsof12ZanclosporaspeciesusingMEGAX[82]toobtainsequencesimilaritythresh‐
oldsforspeciesdelimitationinZanclospora.Theobtainedvalueandthelimitoffullcov‐
eragewereusedforthesearchintheGlobalFungiv.0.9.6(releaseversion1.0)database
containingdatafrom20,000samplesoriginatingfrom207studies[34].Foreachtaxon,
dataaboutoccurrenceacrossenvironmentalsamplesandmetadatarelatedtothepartic‐
ularsamples(location,substrate,biome,climaticdata,pH)wereobtained(TableS2).Taxa
relatedtoZanclosporawereusedforcomparison,e.g.Chaetosphaeriaminuta,Cryptophiale,
CryptophialoideaandKionochaeta(TableS3).
InordertostudyZanclosporadiversityhiddenamongenvironmentalsequences,the
full‐lengthITS1andITS2sequencesof12Zanclosporaspecieswereblastedagainstthe
GlobalFungidatabase.Thesequenceswithasimilarityof89–100%andfull‐lengthcover‐
ageweredownloaded.TheZanclosporagenusboundarieswereinferredfromMLtreesof
ITS1andITS2sequencescomputedinPhymlv.3.1[83]usingtheGTRmodeland500
bootstrapreplicates.Thesameprocedure,i.e.blasting,downloadingofrelatedsequences
andphylogeneticanalyses,wasperformedagainstsequencesdepositedinNCBIGenBank
andUNITEdatabase.Virtualtaxa,consistingofenvironmentalsequencesonly,werede‐
finedasarbitraryphylotypesintheMLphylogenetictrees.Metabarcodingdatacancon‐
tainpseudogenouscopies,whichmayleadtoanoverestimationofdiversity.Thus,GC‐
contentandITS2secondarystructurestabilityofobtainedsequenceswerecomparedas
recommendedin[84].
3.Results
3.1.PhylogeneticAnalyses
InordertoexaminetheevolutionaryrelationshipsofZanclosporawithintheSordari‐
omycetidae,phylogeneticanalysiswasbasedonthecombined18S,28Sandrpb2se‐
quencesof108representativesoftheSordariomycetes.Adelosphaeriacatenata,Mela‐
notrigonumovaleandPleurotheciellaerumpens(Pleurotheciales,Hypocreomycetidae)
servedastheoutgroup.Onehundred‐twentynucleotides(nt)atthe5′‐endof18S,85ntat
the5′‐endand483ntatthe3′‐endof28Swereexcludedfromthealignmentbecauseofthe
incompletenessinthemajorityofsequences.Thefulldatasetconsistedof4139characters
includinggaps(18S=1634characters,28S=1342,rpb2=1163)and2213uniquecharacter
sites(RAxML).FortheBIanalysis,theGTR+I+Gmodelwasselectedforallpartitions.The
BIandMLtreeswerenotinconflict;theMLtreeisshowninFigure1.ThesubclassSor‐
dariomycetidaeincluded30well‐supportedclades(≥75%MLBS/≥1.0PP)representing
ordersandfamiliesandoneincertaesedislineage.Thissubclasswasresolvedwithfour
majorsubclades.Thefirstsubclade(96/1.0)includedtenordersandfamilieswithmostly
phialidicandtreticconidiogenesis,rarelyholoblastic,namelyBoliniales,Cephalothecales,
Chaetosphaeriales,Coniochaetales,Cordanales,Helminthosphaeriaceae,Leptosphaerel‐
laceae,Phyllachorales,Pseudodactylariales,SordarialesandTracyllales.Thesecondsub‐
cladeincludedVermiculariopsiellales(100/1.0)andanunsupportedcladewithMirannu‐
latasamuelsiiandTeracosphaeriapetroica(bothincertaesedis).Specieswithprevalentholo‐
blasticconidiogenesis,ifknown,attributedto13ordersandfamilies,formedastrongly
supportedsubclade(98/1.0),whichwasinferredassistertothefourthsubclade(99/1.0)
containingCalosphaeriales,Diaporthales,JobellisialesandTogninialeswithphialidicco‐
nidiogenesis.TheXylariomycetidaewereresolvedasastronglysupportedclade(100/1.0)
encompassingfiverepresentativesoftheXylariales.Zanclosporanovae‐zelandiaeclustered
intheChaetosphaeriales(100/1.0),whileZ.stellatanestedintheVermiculariopsiellales
andwastransferredtoanewgenusStephanophorella.Zanclosporaureweraewasinferredas

Microorganisms2021,9,7067of60


amemberoftheXylariales(100/1.0)andaccommodatedinthenewgenusBrachiampulla.
Anon‐typestrainofSelenosporellacurvisporaCBS102623,thegenerictype,clusteredinthe
Helminthosphaeriaceae.
RelationshipsofZanclosporawithfourChaetosphaeria,sofarknowntoproduceonly
aphaeostalagmus‐likeanamorphortheiranamorphisunknown[12,85,86],andother
membersoftheChaetosphaeriaceaewereassessedinthephylogeneticanalysisofadata
setthatincludedITSand28Ssequencesof89representativespeciesofthefamily.Lepto‐
sporellaarengaeandL.bambusae(Leptosphaerellaceae),andTracyllaeucalyptiandT.aristata
(Tracyllaceae)servedasanoutgroup.Seventy‐onentatthe5′‐endand663ntatthe3′‐end
of28Swereexcludedfromthealignment.
Thealignmenthad1722charactersincludinggaps(ITS=605characters,28S=1117)
and861uniquecharactersites(RAxML).FortheBIanalysis,theGTR+I+Gmodelwas
selectedforbothpartitions.NoconflictsoccurredbetweenBIandMLtrees;theMLtree
isshowninFigure2.TheChaetosphaeriaceaeincluded47lineagesrepresentinggenera
ornaturalgroupsofspecies.Zanclosporawasresolvedasastronglysupportedmonophy‐
leticclade(99/1.0).FourChaetosphaeria,namelyCh.jonesii,Ch.phaeostalacta,Ch.sylvatica
andCh.tropicalis,clusteredintheZanclosporaclade.Kionochaetawasshownasparaphy‐
letic,anon‐typestrainofK.ramiferaMUCL39164[87],thetypespeciesofthegenus,clus‐
teredwithtwootherKionochaetaasamonophyleticlineage(100/1.0),whileK.ivoriensis
nestedonaseparatebranchclosetoCryptophialeandCryptophialoidea.Phaeostalagmus(as
P.cyclosporusCBS663.70,thegenerictype)andStanjehughesia(asS.hormiscioidesCBS
102664),twohyphomycetegenerawhosesimilarphenotypesappearinthelifecycleof
Zanclospora,wereresolvedasseparatelineages.
Inordertoevaluaterelationshipsamong16strainsofZanclosporaandfivestrainsof
Chaetosphaeria,someofwhichformaphaeostalagmus‐likeanamorphinculture,weana‐
lysedadatasetofthecombinedITS,28S,tef1‐αandtub2sequences.ThreeDictyochaeta
wereusedasanoutgrouptorootthetree.Thealignmenthad4770charactersincluding
gaps(ITS=487,28S=1842,tef1‐α=992,tub2=1449)and729uniquecharactersites
(RAxML).FortheBIanalysis,theGTR+GmodelwasselectedforITSandtef1‐α,GTR+I+G
for28Sandtub2codingregion,andGTR+Iforthetub2non‐codingpartition.TheMLtree
isshowninFigure3.Zanclosporawasresolvedwithtwosubcladescontaining12species.
MoleculardataconfirmedacloserelationshipamongspecieswiththetypicalZanclospora
conidiophoresandthoseexhibitingphaeostalagmus‐ andstanjehughesia‐likemor‐
photypes.Thefirstsubclade(–/1.0)comprisedninespeciesincludingZ.novae‐zelandiae
andfivenewspecies,namelyZ.aurea,Z.clavulata,Z.falcata,Z.ramiferaandZ.xylophila,
describedbelow.Thesecondsubclade(100/1.0)containedthreespeciesformerlyat‐
tributedtoChaetosphaeria.ThedifferencesbetweenBIandMLtreeswereintheposition
ofseveralspecies.IntheBItree,Z.aureawasshownonaseparatebranch,andZ.phae‐
ostalactaandZ.xylophilawereresolvedassisterspecies.
RelationshipsofZ.ureweraewereassessedinthephylogeneticanalysisofthecom‐
binedITS,28S,tef1‐αandrpb2sequencesof81representativesoftheXylariales.Bac‐
trodesmiumabruptumandB.diversum(Savoryellaceae),Helicoascotaiwanialacustrisand
Pleurotheciellaerumpens(Pleurotheciaceae)wereusedtorootthetree.Eighty‐fiventatthe
5′‐endand925ntatthe3′‐endof28Swereexcludedfromthealignment.Thealignment
had3964charactersincludinggaps(ITS=764characters,28S=857,tef1‐α=1148,rpb2=
1195)and2307uniquecharactersites(RAxML).FortheBIanalysis,theSYM+I+Gmodel
wasselectedforITS,whiletheGTR+I+Gmodelwasselectedfor28S,tef1‐αandrpb2par‐
titions.TherewerenoconflictsbetweenMLandBItrees;theMLtreeisshowninFigure
4.TheXylarialesincluded33well‐supportedcladesrepresentingfamiliesandoneincertae
sedislineage.ZanclosporaureweraewasclusteredasasistertoXyladictyochaetaofthe
Xyladictyochaetaceae(99/1.0).MorphologicallysimilargeneraandspeciessuchasSeleno‐
driella(Microdochiaceae)andCeratocladiumpolysetosum(incertaesedis)formedseparatelin‐
eages.

Microorganisms2021,9,7068of60



(A)




Microorganisms2021,9,7069of60



(B)
Figure1.(A)Phylogeneticanalysisof18S,28Sandrpb2oftheSordariomycetes.Speciesnamesgiveninboldaretaxonomic
novelties;T,EandPindicateex‐type,ex‐epitypeandex‐paratypestrains.TaxahighlightedingreenrepresentSeleno‐
sporellaandselenosporella‐likefungiintheHelminthosphaeriaceae.Thickenedbranchesindicatebranchsupportwith
maximumlikelihood(ML)bootstrapping(BS)=100%,posteriorprobabilities(PP)values=1.0.Branchsupportofnodes
≥75%MLBSand≥0.95PPisindicatedaboveorbelowbranches.(B)Phylogeneticanalysisof18S,28Sandrpb2ofthe
Sordariomycetes(continued).ForlegendrefertoFigure1A.

Microorganisms2021,9,70610of60



Figure2.CombinedphylogenyusingITSand28SofmembersoftheChaetosphaeriaceae.Speciesnamesgiveninboldare
taxonomicnovelties;T,E,IandPindicateex‐type,ex‐epitype,ex‐isotypeandex‐paratypestrains.Thickenedbranches
indicatebranchsupportwithMLBS=100%,PPvalues=1.0.Branchsupportofnodes≥75%MLBSand≥0.95PPisindi‐
catedaboveorbelowbranches.Abbreviation:p.p.afteragenusname(proparte).

Microorganisms2021,9,70611of60



Figure3.CombinedphylogenyofITS,28S,tef1‐αandtub2sequencesofZanclospora.Namesgiveninboldarenewspecies.
TandEindicateex‐typeandex‐epitypestrains.ThickenedbranchesindicatebranchsupportwithMLBS=100%,PP
values=1.0.Branchsupportofnodes≥75%MLBSand≥0.95PPisindicatedaboveorbelowbranches.

Microorganisms2021,9,70612of60



Figure4.CombinedphylogenyofITS,28S,tef1‐αandrpb2sequencesofselectedmembersoftheXylariales.Speciesnames
giveninboldaretaxonomicnovelties;T,E,NandPindicateex‐type,ex‐epitype,ex‐neotypeandex‐paratypestrains.
ThickenedbranchesindicatebranchsupportwithMLBS=100%,PPvalues=1.0.Branchsupportofnodes≥75%MLBS
and≥0.95PPisindicatedaboveorbelowbranches.Abbreviation:Pseud.(Pseudosporidesmiaceae).

Microorganisms2021,9,70613of60


3.2.BarcodeAnalysis
Althoughwelackedenoughrepresentativesforspeciestobeabletofullyexplorethe
barcodinggapofZanclosporas.str.,weusedthecurrentfour‐genedatasettoexamine
pairwisegeneticdistances,visualizethemandevaluatethespecies‐delimitingabilityof
eachmarker(TableS4).Thebarcodinggapseparatingintraspecificandinterspecificvari‐
abilityofZanclosporawaspresentinallstudiedmarkers,withthebiggestgapfoundin
tef1‐α,followedbytub2,ITSand28S.InITS,theminimalinterspecificdivergenceoccurred
amongspeciesoftheZ.novae‐zelandiaespeciescomplex(0.64–1.3%),thenextminimum
andmaximumdistancesbetweenotherspeciesrangedbetweenvalues1.3–16.18%.Intef1‐
α,theminimumgeneticdistanceoccurredbetweenthesiblingspecies,Z.falcataandZ.
novae‐zelandiae(0.52%),butrangedfrom1.05to5.24%inotherspecies.Thesituationin
tub2genewascomplicatedbyvariouslengthsofthesequencedfragments.Nonetheless,
theperformanceofthegeneiscomparabletotef1‐αanddelimitscloselyrelatedspecies;
theminimumandmaximuminterspecificdistancesrangedbetweenvalues1.45–15.14%.
Thegenestef1‐α,tub2andITSarerecommendedasbarcodesforZanclospora.
3.3.AnalysisofZanclosporaDiversityinEnvironmentalSamples,BiogeographyandEcology
FortheITS1,thelowestinterspeciesdistancewas0.012(Z.clavulatavsZ.novae‐zelan‐
diae).FortheITS2,thelowestdistancerangedfrom0(Z.novae‐zelandiaevsZ.xylophila)
followedbyZ.novae‐zelandiaevsZ.ibericaandZ.xylophilavsZ.iberica,both0.012.The
obtainedvaluesshowedthatforITS1andITS2thereisnogenerallyvalidsequencesimi‐
laritythresholdforspeciesdelimitationinZanclospora.However,99–100%sequencesim‐
ilaritywasapplicableformostofthespeciesandwasusedforthesearchinGlobalFungi.
TheonlyexceptionswereZ.novae‐zelandiaeandZ.xylophila,wherethecriterionoffull
sequencesimilarityinITS2wasused.
TheBLASTsearchresultedin559uniqueITS1sequences(similarity89–100%toZan‐
closporaqueries,seeSection2.5).Thedereplicateddatasethad33sequences,185charac‐
ters,fromwhich82werevariableand16singletons.TheMLtree(Phyml)wasrootedina
branchleadingtotheDictyochaetacladeandisshowninFigure5.Theenvironmentalse‐
quenceswereclusteredintosevenphylotypes.Amongthem,onecanbelinkedwithZ.
jonesii.FortheITS2,108uniquesequenceswerefound,whichresultedin79sequences
attributabletoZanclospora.Thedereplicateddatasethad48sequences,166characters,
fromwhich87werevariableand20singletons.TheMLtree(Phyml)wasrootedina
branchleadingtotheDictyochaetacladeandisshowninFigure6.Theenvironmentalse‐
quencesclusteredinto15phylotypes.OnewaslinkedwithZ.clavulata,whiletheother
threecontainedsequencesofthewholeITSregion,andthusmaybelinkedwithphylo‐
typesdefinedbytheITS1marker.ThesameprocedurewasappliedtodatafromtheNCBI
GenBankandUNITEdatabasesandresultedinthesinglesequence(Ascomycetesp.,
DQ124120,unpublished),whichwaslinkedwithphylotypeITS1‐ENV5(Figure5).The
sequencesimilarityintheITS2regionhaslittledifferentiationpowerintheZ.novae‐zelan‐
diaeclade.Interestingly,Z.novae‐zelandiaeandZ.xylophilashareidenticalITS2,whilethey
aredistinctinITS1andotherstudiedgenes.ThebesthitofZ.novae‐zelandiae/Z.xylophila
was99.32%andisconsideredasITS2‐ENV2phylotype(Figure6,TableS3).
Concerningthediversitypresentedinenvironmentalsequences,onlyZ.clavulataand
Z.jonesiiweretracedintheGlobalFungidatabaseatthedefinedsimilaritylevel.Another
sixand11phylotypes,respectively,roughlycorrespondingtothelevelofspecies,were
identifiedinITS1andITS2.Biogeographyandecologyofnewlyidentifiedphylotypes
inferredfromtheGlobalFungidatabase(TablesS2,S3andS5)andknownspecies(Table
S6)aresummarisedinFigures5–7.


Microorganisms2021,9,70614of60



Figure5.PhylogeneticrelationshipsamongZanclosporaspeciesandrelatedITS1environmentalsequencesdepositedin
theGlobalFungidatabase.ThetitlesofsequencescontainthesequenceandsamplecodestakenfromGlobalFungi.Branch
support(ML)isretainedatthenodes.EnvironmentalsamplesinboldindicatethosesequencedforthewholeITSregion.
Habitatoftheenvironmentalsequencesisindicatedbybrown,greyandgreenboxescorrespondingtodeadwood,soilor
roots.

Microorganisms2021,9,70615of60



Figure6.PhylogeneticrelationshipsamongZanclosporaspeciesandrelatedITS2environmentalsequencesdepositedin
theGlobalFungidatabase.ThetitlesofsequencescontainthesequenceandsamplecodestakenfromGlobalFungi.Branch
support(ML)isretainedatthenodes.EnvironmentalsamplesinboldindicatethosesequencedforthewholeITSregion.
Habitatoftheenvironmentalsequencesisindicatedbybrown,greyandgreenboxescorrespondingtodeadwood,soilor
roots.Asterisk(*)indicatesphylotypesthatcanbelinkedwithphylotypesdefinedbytheITS1marker.


Microorganisms2021,9,70616of60



Figure7.GeographicaldistributionandsubstrateaffinityofZanclosporaspecieswithknownITSsequencedata.ThemapsummarizesdatafromtheGlobalFungidatabase
(shownbycircles)andfieldcollectionsverifiedbysequencing(species1–12)orbasedonlyonpublisheddata(species13–20)(shownbysquares).SeeTablesS2andS6for
primarydata.Eachsymbol(circleorsquare)representsauniquesample.Thesubstratesaredifferentiatedbycolours.NotethatenvironmentaltaxadefinedbyITS1
sequencescanoverlapwiththosefromtheITS2dataset.

Microorganisms2021,9,70617of60


BasedonthefieldrecordsverifiedorunverifiedbyDNAdata,twocentresofZanclo‐
sporadiversitycanbeidentified:South,CentralAmericaandCaribbean(Z.sylvatica,Z.
tropicalis,Z.austroamericana,Z.bicolorata,Z.bonfinensis,Z.brevisporavar.brevispora,Z.in‐
dica,Z.cf.novae‐zelandiae)andAustralasia(Z.aurea,Z.falcata,Z.novae‐zelandiae,Z.phae‐
ostalacta,Z.ramifera,Z.xylophila,Z.brevisporavar.brevispora),whicharefollowedbyre‐
gionswithlesserdiversitysuchasAfrica(Z.brevisporavar.brevispora,Z.brevisporavar.
transvaalensis,Z.mystica),SoutheastAsia(Z.jonesii,Z.cf.novae‐zelandiae),Europe(Z.clavu‐
lata,Z.iberica)andNorthAmerica(Z.lateriphiala).
Interestingly,theobservedgeographicaldistributioncorrespondsroughlywiththe
phylogeneticrelatedness(Figures3,5and6).Inthefour‐geneanalysis,Zanclosporaformed
twomainclades.AcladecontainingZ.novae‐zelandiaeandrelatedspecies(Figure3,node
–/1.0)hasAustralasiandistribution,withtwospecies(Z.clavulata,Z.iberica)knownfrom
Europeandone(Z.lateriphiala)fromtheUSA.Inthesecondclade,thereareclusteredtwo
strainsfromCentralAmericaandtheCaribbean(Z.sylvatica,Z.tropicalis)togetherwitha
strainfromSoutheastAsia(Z.jonesii).Analysesoftheenvironmentalsequencesidentified
anotherdiversitycentreinSoutheastAsia(China,Malaysia:ITS1‐ENV1–5,ITS2‐ENV6–8,
11),followedbyAustralasia(NewCaledonia,NewZealand,PapuaNewGuineaandTas‐
mania:ITS2‐ENV1‐5),SouthAmerica(Brazil,ColombiaandFrenchGuiana:ITS2‐ENV9,
10)andHawaii(ITS1‐ENV6).TherestofthelineagesintheITS2tree(Figure6)aredis‐
tributedeitherinCentralorSouthAmericaorSoutheastAsia.Zanclosporaspecies/phylo‐
typeswererepresentedbyonly296sequencereadsoutofatotalof6.5×108reads(ITS1
64%,ITS236%)depositedintheGlobalFungidatabase.Allhitsoriginatedfromsamples
collectedbelowthelatitudeof23°N.InEurope(44%ofallsamplesinGlobalFungi)and
NorthAmerica(20%),whicharethebest‐sampledcontinentsintheGlobalFungidatabase,
thesefungiwerecompletelymissing.Thefieldcollectionsoriginatedmostlyfromdecay‐
ingbarkandwoodorleaflitterinterrestrial,lessofteninfreshwaterhabitats(Figure7,
TableS6).Inthecaseoftheenvironmentalsequences,themostfrequentlyinhabitedsub‐
strateappearedtobebulksoil,followedbydeadwoodandrootsintheforestandrarely
shrublandbiome.Themedianvaluesofmeanannualtemperatureandmeanannualpre‐
cipitationwere16°Cand2223mm.Thesamplingsitesbelongedtothebiomesoftemper‐
ateortropicalrainforests(TableS2).
3.4.Taxonomy
ZanclosporaS.Hughes&W.B.Kendr.,N.Z.J.Bot.3:151.1965.
Typespecies:Zanclosporanovae‐zelandiaeS.HughesandW.B.Kendr.,N.Z.J.Bot.3:152.
1965.
Emendeddescription:Colonieseffuse,hairy,golden‐yellow,yellow‐brown,tawny,
reddish‐brownordarkbrownwithwhitetolightstrawconidialmasses,sometimesac‐
companiedbyascomata.Teleomorph:Ascomataperithecial,non‐stromatic,glabrous,pa‐
pillate.Ostioleperiphysate.Ascomatalwall2–3‐layered.Paraphysesdisintegratingwith
age,hyaline,branched,septate.Asciunitunicate,8‐spored,short‐stipitate,ascalapexwith
anon‐amyloid,refractiveapicalannulus.Ascosporestransverselyseptate,hyaline.Ana‐
morph:Conidiophoresmacronematous,mononematous,erect,setiform,cylindricaltocy‐
lindrical‐fusiform,septate,brown,palertowardstheapex,occasionallydarkbrownand
opaque,apexacute,subacuteorobtuse,sterileordevelopedintoaphialide,conidio‐
phoressimpleorbranched;branchessetiform,fertile,resemblethemainstalkorshorter,
sterileinsertedintotheconidiophore.Conidiogenouscellsmonophialidic,determinate,
sessile,discrete,lateral,appressedtotheconidiophore,arisejustbelowthesepta,ar‐
rangedinwhorlsformingoneortwocompactfertileregions,occasionallyintegrated,ter‐
minal,attheconidiophoreapex,ovoidtolageniform,subhyalinetolightbrown,smooth,
collarettesinconspicuoustoshort‐flared.Macroconidiafalcate,almosthorseshoe‐shaped,
obovoid,occasionallybacilliform,straight,gentlyorstronglycurved,aseptate,hyaline,
smooth,withoutsetulaeorsheaths,accumulatinginaslimymass.Microconidia(formed

Microorganisms2021,9,70618of60


onlyinculture)clavatetooblong‐clavate,ellipsoidaltofusiform,aseptate,hyaline,
smooth.Synanamorphs:phaeostalagmus‐like(formedonlyinculture).Conidiophores
semimacronematousormacronematous,mononematous,erect,simpleorbranched,sep‐
tate,pigmented,apexfertile.Conidiogenouscellsphialidicwithasingleapicalopening,
integrated,terminalordiscrete,lateral,solitaryorinwhorls.Conidiaellipsoidaltooblong,
aseptate,hyaline,smooth.stanjehughesia‐like.Conidiophoresmacronematous,mo‐
nonematous,erect,unbranched,occasionallybranched,septate,pigmented,straightor
sinuous,sterile,taperingtowardsthebase,graduallytaperingtowardstheapex,sterile,
rarelywithafewlateral,subhyaline,lageniformphialides.
Habitatandgeographicaldistribution:Membersofthegenusaresaprobesondecay‐
ingplantmaterialwithaworldwidedistributioninNorthernandSoutherntemperate,
subtropicalandtropicalclimatezones(Figure7).Althoughmostofthefieldobservations
includespecimensondecayingwoodorfallenleaves,environmentalITS1andITS2se‐
quencesattributabletoZanclosporaoriginatedalsofromsoilandroots(TablesS2andS5).
Moreover,environmentaldatasuggestedseveralnew,likelyundescribedspecieslineages
fromSoutheastAsia,AustralasiaandSouthAmerica.
Notes:OurZanclosporastrainsderivedfromconidiaandascosporeisolatesexhibitan
undescribedmorphologicalvariabilityinanamorphiccharacteristicsthatareassociated
withthreeanamorphicstages.Sterileorrarelyfertileconidiophoresresemblingeuseptate,
cylindricalconidiaofanotherhyphomyceteStanjehughesia[18]wereoftenassociatedwith
ascomataandthetypicalZanclosporaconidiophores.Onnaturalsubstratesandinculture,
Zanclosporaandstanjehughesia‐likeconidiophoresoccurirregularlyandindependently
ofeachother.TheZanclosporaconidiophoresthatariseonagarareusuallylesscomplex
andsignificantlyreducedinsizebecomingremarkablysimilartoPhaeostalagmus[19],or
theyarereducedtosingleconidiogenouscells.Thesereducedformsproducemicro‐
conidiaexclusively,comparedtothecomplexZanclosporaconidiophoresonnaturalsub‐
stratesorsterilestemsofU.dioicainvitroproducingmacroconidia.Thereisverylittle
differencebetweenthemorphologyofareducedZanclosporaconidiophoreandwhatcan
becalledthephaeostalagmus‐likemorphotype.Inthelatter,thephialidesarelateral,ses‐
sile,arrangedinverticilliandalsodisposedterminally,sometimesonshortbranches,re‐
semblingP.cyclosporus,thetypespeciesofthegenus.Thephaeostalagmus‐likemor‐
photypeoccursprimarilyinspecieswhoseaxenicculturewasderivedfromascospores
andtheZanclosporaanamorphisunknown,i.e.Z.phaeostalacta([85],Figures55–61)Z.syl‐
vatica([12],Figures203,205,206)andZ.tropicalis([12],Figures221,222,224).
SeventeenspeciesandtwovarietiesareacceptedinZanclospora,12ofwhichhave
beenverifiedusingmoleculardataandarepresentedbelow.Theircoloniesonthefour
growthmediaarecomparedinFigures8and9.Newteleomorph‐anamorphconnections
havebeenexperimentallyconfirmedforZ.aurea,Z.falcata,Z.novae‐zelandiae,Z.ramifera
andZ.xylophila.Fiveotherspecies,whosemoleculardataareunavailable,areprovision‐
allyacceptedinZanclosporabasedonmorphologicalsimilarities,namelyZ.austroameri‐
cana[3],Z.bicolorata[10],Z.bonfinensis[8],Z.brevispora[1]andZ.mystica[4].Zanclospora
indica[2],Z.stellata[6]andZ.urewerae[7]areexcludedfromthegenus.
Zanclosporabonfinensis,Z.bicolorataandZ.mysticadeviatefromotherZanclosporain
conidiophoresthataredarkerandopaqueintheuppersetiformpart.Moreover,thetwo
formerspeciespossesstubulartonarrowlywedge‐shapedcollarettesandbacilliformto
suballantoidconidiathatareuniqueinZanclosporaandbettercorrespondtoZ.stellata,
transferredtothenewgenusStephanophorellainthisstudy.Theconidiophoresofother
Zanclosporaarepalertowardstheapex,theapexandtherestoftheconidiophorehave
moreorlessthesamecolour,conidiaarefalcatetoalmosthorseshoe‐shaped,obovoid,
clavateandcollarettesareinconspicuoustoshort‐flared.
Preparationoftheidentificationkeyhasprovenchallenging,mainlyduetoincon‐
sistenciesintheoccurrenceofteleomorphs,anamorphsandsynanamorphsonnatural
materialandinculture.Therefore,asynopsistablewithdiagnosticfeaturesofaccepted
speciesofZanclosporaiscompiledtoshowtheinterspecificvariability(Table2).

Microorganisms2021,9,70619of60



Figure8.ColonymorphologyofZanclosporanovae‐zelandiaespeciescomplexoncornmealdextroseagar(CMD),Modified
Leonian’sagar(MLA),oatmealagar(OA)andpotato‐carrotagar(PCA)after4weeks.(A)Z.clavulataCBS146967.(B)Z.
falcataICMP23702.(C)Z.ibericaCBS130426.(D)Z.ibericaCBS130280.(E)Z.novae‐zelandiaeICMP15781.Bar:(A–E)=1
cm.

Microorganisms2021,9,70620of60



Figure9.ColonymorphologyofZanclosporaonCMD,MLA,OAandPCAafter4(–6)weeks.(A)Z.aureaICMP23703(6
weeks).(B)Z.lateriphialaCBS147014(4weeks).(C)Z.phaeostalactaICMP15137ex‐type(4weeks).(D)Z.ramiferaICMP
15127(4weeks).(E)Z.xylophilaICMP22737.Bar:(A–E)=1cm.

Microorganisms2021,9,70621of60


Table2.AsynopsistableofZanclospora.
TeleomorphicCharacters:     
TaxonSubstrateCountry Teleomorph
 AsciAscospores
    Size(μm)Size(μm)SeptationShape
Z.aurea decayingwoodNewZealandpresent142–185(–192)×16.5–20.5 28.5–35.5×7–8.5(–9)3‐septatefusiform
Z.austroamericanabarkBrazilunknownn/an/an/an/a
Z.bicoloratadecayingleafEcuadorunknownn/an/an/an/a
Z.bonfinensisdecayingleavesBrazilunknownn/an/an/an/a
Z.brevisporavar.brevisporabark NewZealandpresent63–75×5–7,stipe10–14×3–58–10×3–41‐septatebroadlyellipsoidal
Z.brevisporavar.trans‐
vaalensisdecayingwoodSouthAfricaunknownn/an/an/an/a
Z.clavulataplantdebrisPortugalunknownn/an/an/an/a
Z.
f
alcatadecayingwoodNewZealandpresent(104–)112–125(
–
132)×11
–
13.523.5–28.5(
–
30)×4.5–5.53‐septatefusiform
Z.ibericaplantdebrisSpainunknownn/an/an/an/a
Z.jonesiidecorticatedwoodThailandpresent69–90×8.5–1116.2–17.7×2.8–3.6 3‐septatefusiform,bent
Z.lateriphialadecayingwoodUSApresent95
–
113×10
–
12.518
–
24×4.5–6(1
–
)3‐septatefusiform
Z.mysticadeadleavesIvoryCoastunknownn/an/an/an/a
Z.novae‐zelandiaedecayingwoodNewZealandunknown(120–)126–139(–148)×11–12(–13)25–29.5(–31)×4–5 3‐septatefusiform
Z.phaeostalacta decayingwoodNewZealandpresent96
–
127p.sp.×12
–
15(
–
16)(28–)30
–
38(
–
40)×5–6(
–
8)5
–
7‐septatefusiform
Z.ramiferadecayingwoodNewZealandpresent98–125×(10.5–)11–12.5 17–24(–25.5)×5.5–73‐septatefusiform
Z.sylvaticadecayingwoodUSApresent95–115×8.7–10.713–20×4–5.53‐septatefusiform
Z.tropicalisdecayingwoodUSApresent100–138×10–12.519–26×3.2–6.3 3‐septatefusiform,bent
Z.xylophiladecayingwoodNewZealandpresent107–130(–141)×12.5–14(–14.5)23–28(–31)×(4–)4.5–5.5(–6) 3–5‐septatefusiform

AnamorphicCharacters:
TaxonZanclosporaAnamorph
ConidiophoresMacroconidia
 OnNaturalSubstrate(μm)BranchesApex InCulture(μm)Size(μm)Shape
Z.aurea 478–568×4.5–6,5–6.5atFZpresent,similartomainstalksmoothabsent15–23(–24)×3–4.5 falcate/horseshoe‐
shaped
Z.austroamericanaupto260×6absentsmoothn/a12–19×2–3falcate
Z.bicoloratanotobservedabsentsmooth≤300×10
–
172
–
4×1–1.5suballantoid
Z.bonfinensis110–210×3.5–6absentverrucosen/a3–5.5×1–2bacilliform
Z.brevisporavar.brevispora100–175(–220)×5.4–7absentsmoothn/a5.4–8(–9.4)×1.4–2narrowlyobovoid
Z.brevisporavar.trans‐
vaalensisupto140×10,5–6atFZabsentsmoothn/a8–10×2.5narrowlyobovoidtocla‐
vate
Z.clavulatanotobservedabsent*smooth*33–68×3–4,3–4atFZnotobservedn/a
Z.falcata210–350(–520)×5–7.5,6–8atFZpresent,similartomainstalkwithexcrescences80−120×5−6(−7.5),7−8atFZ18–24.5×2.5–3falcate
Z.ibericanotobservedpresent,similartomainstalk*smooth*128–318×4.5–6,6.5–9atFZ(12.5–)15.5–25×2–3*falcate
Z.jonesiinotobservedn/an/an/an/an/a
Z.lateriphiala240–284×5–6.5present,similartomainstalksmooth56–120×2.5–315–25×2.5–4falcate
Z.mystica135–175×4.5present,setiformsmoothn/a12.5–16.5×1.5–2.5falcate
Z.novae‐zelandiae360–450×5.5–7,5.5–6.5atFZpresent,similartomainstalkwithexcrescences277–380×4.5–5.5(–6),6.5–8atFZ24–28.5×(2–)2.5–316–24×(1.5–
)2–3*falcate

Microorganisms2021,9,70622of60


Z.phaeostalacta notobservedn/an/an/an/an/a
Z.ramiferanotobservedpresent,similartomainstalksmooth(30–)55
–
235×2
–
3.5,3.5–6atFZn/an/a
Z.sylvaticanotobservedn/an/an/an/an/a
Z.tropicalisnotobservedn/an/an/an/an/a
Z.xylophilanotobservedn/asmoothn/an/an/a

SynanamorphicCharacters:
Taxonstanjehughesia‐likeSynanamorphZanclosporaConidiophoresorphaeostalagmus‐likeSynanamorphInVitro**
ConidiophoresConidiophores Microconidia
 OnNaturalSubstrate(μm)InCulture(μm) Size(μm)ShapeReference
Z.aurea notobservednotobservedpresent5–6×1.5–2.5clavateThisstudy
Z.austroamericananotobservedn/an/an/an/a[3]
Z.bicoloratanotobservedn/an/an/an/a[10]
Z.bonfinensisnotobservedn/an/an/an/a[8]
Z.brevisporavar.brevisporanotobservedn/an/an/an/a[1]
Z.brevisporavar.trans‐
vaalensisnotobservedn/an/an/an/a[5]
Z.clavulatanotobserved135–155×3
–
3.5,6–7atMSpresent3.5
–
7×0.7–1 clavatetofusiformThisstudy
Z.falcata155–270×(4–)5–6.5,(9–)11–13at
MS210–310×4.5–6.5,8.5–11atMSpresent5−6×1(–1.5) clavatetooblong‐clavateThisstudy
Z.iberica83–180×9–11 340–660(–920)×(3.5)4.5–6,9–14at
MSpresent(5–)6–10.5×1.5–2clavatetooblong‐clavate[9]
Z.jonesiipresent,describedassetae n/an/an/an/a[86]
Z.lateriphialanotobservednotobservedpresentnotobservednotobserved[12]
Z.mysticanotobservedn/an/an/an/a[4]
Z.novae‐zelandiae364–675×4.5–5,8–10.5atMS605–800×5–5.5,6.5–7.5atMSpresent5–8×1.5–2 clavatetooblong‐clavateThisstudy
Z.phaeostalacta notobservednotobservedpresent3–7×2–2.5ellipsoidal,apiculate[85]
Z.ramifera155–195×4
–
5,10.5
–
12(
–
15)atMS53
–
154×3–3.5,3.5
–
7.5atMSpresent5
–
6×1.5clavatetooblong‐clavateThisstudy
Z.sylvaticanotobservednotobservedpresent5–8×1.2–1.5cylindrical‐clavate[12]
Z.tropicalisnotobservednotobservedpresent5–8×1.2–1.5narrowlyoblong[12]
Z.xylophila180–382×5
–
6,7.5–10atMSnotobservedpresent(5
–
)6
–
8×1.5–2 clavatetooblong‐clavateThisstudy
Notes:*Macroconidiaandconidiophoresinculture;**StronglyreducedZanclosporaconidiophoresorconidiophoresreminiscentofphaeostalagmus‐likeformedin
vitro;MS—Midsectionofthestanjehughesia‐likeconidiophores;FZ—FertilezoneoftheZanclosporaconidiophores.

Microorganisms2021,9,70623of60


3.4.1.AcceptedSpecies
ZanclosporaaureaRéblová&Hern.‐Restr.,sp.nov.MycoBankMB837797.(Figure10).

Figure10.Zanclosporaaurea(ICMP23703ex‐type).(A,B)Colonies.(C)AscomataassociatedwithZanclosporaanamorph.
(D,E)Verticalsectionsoftheascomalwall.(F,G)Asci.(H)Ascalapiceswithanapicalannulus.(I)Paraphyses.(J)Asco‐
spores.(K,L,U,V)Conidiophores.(M–Q)Conidiophoreswithphialides,indetail(arrowindicatesconnectivesthrough
withtheconidiophoresanastomose).(R–T)Macroconidia.Images:(A–T)onthenaturalsubstrate;(U,V)onPCAafter4
months.Bars:(A–C)=500μm;(D,L)=50μm;(E)=20μm;(F–K,M–T)=10μm;(U,V)=5μm.

Microorganisms2021,9,70624of60


Typus:NEWZEALAND,WestCoast,Bullerdistrict,VictoriaForestPark,Rough
CreekRoad,ca.4kmSofInangahua,ondecayingwoodofabranch,22April2005,M.
RéblováM.R.3515/NZ808(holotypePDD118750,cultureex‐typeICMP23703=CBS
147013).
Etymology:Aureus(L)golden,fromaurum(gold),referringtothecolourofgolden‐
yellowcoloniesoftheanamorph.
Descriptiononthenaturalsubstrate:Colonieseffusetocushion‐like,golden‐yellow,
consistingofZanclosporaconidiophoresandascomata.Teleomorph:Ascomata220–320
μmdiam,250–300μmhigh,superficial,aggregated,subglobosetoconical,papillate,dark
browntoblack,glabrous,roughened.Ostioleperiphysate.Ascomatalwallfragile,three‐
layered,48–73μmthick;outerlayer(18–34.5μmthick)composedofbroadlypolyhedral
toglobose,browntogolden‐browncells,amiddlelayercomposedofdarkbrown,thick‐
walled,polyhedralcells,aninnerlayercomposedofsubhyalinetohyaline,thin‐walled,
elongatedcells.Paraphyses3–6μmwide,taperingto2–2.5μm,hyaline,branching,sep‐
tate.Asci142–185(–192)×16.5–20.5μm(mean±SD=165.3±16.8×18.5±1.1μm),cylin‐
drical‐fusiform,short‐stipitate,apicallybroadlyroundedtoobtuse,withanon‐amyloid
apicalannulus4.5–5μmwide,2–2.5μmhigh.Ascospores28.5–35.5×7–8.5(–9)μm(mean
±SD=31.9±1.6×8.1±0.5μm),fusiform,3‐septate,notconstrictedatthesepta,hyaline,
finelyverrucose,2‐seriateorobliquely1‐seriatewithintheascus.Anamorph:Conidio‐
phores478–568μmlong,4.5–6μmwideabovethebulbosebase,5–6.5μmwideatthe
fertileregion,erect,setiform,taperinggraduallyupwards,straightorgentlybent,simple
orbranched,themainstalkoftenwithonetoseveralprimarybranchescurvedupwards,
secondaryandtertiarybranchesalsodevelop,septate,lightbrowntogolden‐brownto
darkyellow,thick‐walledtowardsthebase,palerandthinner‐walledtowardstheapex,
smooth,apexsterile,narrowlyrounded.Theupperpartwithseveralclavate,ovaltoir‐
regularlyshapedoutgrowths,3–4.5×5–6μm,functioningasconnectingelementsthrough
whichtheconidiophoresanastomosetoformanetwork.Conidiogenouscellsmono‐
phialidic,12.5–15.5(–17.5)×4.5–6.5(–7)μm,taperingto1–2μmjustbelowthecollarette,
discrete,lateral,arrangedingroupsof2–5in1–3whorls,ovoidtolageniform,lightbrown,
smooth;collarettesflaring,1.5–2.5μmwide,0.5–1μmdeep.Macroconidia15–23(–24)×3–
4.5μm(mean±SD=19.1±2.0×3.6±0.6μm),falcateandstronglycurvedtoalmosthorse‐
shoe‐shaped,narrowlyroundedatbothends,aseptate,hyaline,smooth,accumulatingin
whitetolightyellowmassenvelopingthewholefertileregion.Synanamorph:Notob‐
served.
Culturecharacteristics:OnCMDcolonies6–7mmdiam,circular,slightlyconvex,
marginentire,velvety,finelyfurrowed,browntobeige‐brownoccasionallywithadark
brownouterzoneofsubmergedgrowth,reversedarkbrown.OnMLAcolonies5–9mm
diam,circulartoirregular,pulvinate,marginentire,velvety,furrowed,brown,reverse
darkbrown.OnOAcolonies7–8mmdiam,circular,convex,marginentire,velvety,light
grey,olivaceousgreyatthemargin,lightolivaceouspigmentdiffusingintoagar,reverse
darkolivaceous‐grey.OnPCAcolonies5–7mmdiam,circular,slightlyconvex,margin
entiretofinelylobate,velvety,furrowed,beige‐brownwithadarkbrownouterzoneof
submergedgrowth,reversedarkbrown.SporulationwassparseonMLAandPCA,ab‐
sentonCMDandOA.
DescriptiononPCA:Colonieseffuse,vegetativehyphaesubhyalinetolightbrown,
septate,branched,becomingencrustedwithage,2–3.5μmwide.Conidiophores52–107×
3–3.5μm,semi‐macronematous,erect,straight,unbranched,brown,sometimesreduced
tosingleconidiogenouscells.Conidiogenouscellsmonophialidic,12–15(–17)×3–5μm,
taperingto1.5(–2)μmjustbelowthecollarette,discrete,lateralorintegrated,terminal,
arisesinglyoringroupsof2–3inasinglewhorljustbelowtheseptum,lageniform,brown;
collarettes2–2.5×1μm.Macroconidiaabsent.Microconidia5–6×1.5–2.5μm(mean±SD
=5.8±0.5×2.0±0.4μm),clavate,truncateatthebasalend,roundedattheapicalend,
aseptate,hyaline,smooth.Synanamorph:Notobserved.Teleomorph:Notobserved.

Microorganisms2021,9,70625of60


Habitatandgeographicaldistribution:Saprobeondecayingwood,knownfromNew
Zealand.
Notes:Zanclosporaaureaiswell‐distinguishablefromothermembersofthegenusin
thegolden‐yellowcoloniesformedonthenaturalsubstrate,presenceofconnectiveele‐
mentsonconidiophores,andfalcate,stronglycurvedtoalmosthorseshoe‐shapedconidia.
Invitro,colonieswereveryslowgrowing;onMLAtheyappearedpulvinateofsomewhat
crustoseconsistency,whileonothermediacolonieswereeffusewithaspreadingedge.
Thestanjehughesia‐likesynanamorphwasnotobservedonthenaturalsubstrateorany
ofthegrowthmedia.
ZanclosporaclavulataRéblová&Hern.‐Rest.,sp.nov.MycoBankMB837798.(Figure11).

Figure11.Zanclosporaclavulata(CBS146967ex‐type).(A)stanjehughesia‐likeconidiophores.(B–E)Zanclosporaconidio‐
phores.(F)Microconidia.Images:(A–F)onCMAwithU.dioicastemsafter4weeks.Bars:(A)=10μm;(B–F)=5μm.
Typus:PORTUGAL,MinhoProvince,LagoasdoBertiandosprotectedarea,ondead
woodofunidentifiedplant,November2011,R.F.Castañeda‐Ruíz,M.Hernández‐Re‐
strepo,J.GenéandJ.Mariné‐Gené(holotypeCBSH‐24519asdriedculture,cultureex‐
typeCBS146967=FMR12186).
Etymology:Clavulate(Latin)club‐shaped,alternativeformofclavatefromclava(club),
referringtotheshapeofmicroconidia.
Culturecharacteristics:OnCMDcolonies15–17mmdiam,circular,slightlyraised,
marginentiretofinelyfimbriate,lanose,floccose,grey‐brownwithanouterdarkoliva‐
ceousbrownzoneofsubmergedgrowth,reversedarkbrown.OnMLAcolonies24–27
mmdiam,circular,slightlyconvex,marginentire,lanose,beige‐greywithanouterdark
grey‐brownzoneofsubmergedgrowth,reversedarkbrown.OnOAcolonies17–18mm
diam,circular,flattoslightlyconvex,marginentiretofinelyfimbriate,sparselylanose,

Microorganisms2021,9,70626of60


floccose,greywithanouterolivaceousgreyzoneofsubmergedgrowth,reversedarkoli‐
vaceousgrey.OnPCAcolonies19–20mmdiam,circular,flattoslightlyraised,margin
finelyfimbriate,lanose,lightgrey‐brownwithanouterolivaceousbrownzoneofsub‐
merged,reversebrown‐grey.SporulationwasmoderateonCMAwithU.dioicastems,
absentonCMD,MLA,OAandPCA.
DescriptiononCMAwithU.dioicastems:Colonieseffuse,vegetativehyphaesubhy‐
alinetobrown,septate,branched,1–2μmwide.Anamorph:Conidiophores33–68μm
long,3–4μmwideabovethebase,3–4μmwideatthefertileregion,erect,setiform,un‐
branched,septate,cylindrical,graduallytaperingupwards,browntoreddish‐brown,
smooth,apicalcellsterile,subacuteordevelopingintoaphialide.Someconidiophores
reduced,bearingonetoseverallateralphialidesorreducedtosingleconidiogenouscells.
Conidiogenouscellsmonophialidic,7–10×2–3μm,taperingto0.7–1μmbelowthecol‐
larette,discrete,lateral,appressedtotheconidiophore,arrangedingroupsof2–4in1–4
whorls,lageniform,palebrowntosubhyaline,smooth,collarettesindistinct.Macro‐
conidiaabsent.Microconidia3.5–7×0.7–1μm(mean±SD=4.0±0.41×0.96±0.1μm),
clavatetofusiform,taperingtowardsthebasalend,roundedattheapicalend,hyaline,
smooth.Synanamorph:stanjehughesia‐like.Conidiophores135–155μmlong,3–3.5μm
wideabovethebase,6–7μmwideatthemidsection,erect,unbranched,septate,cylindri‐
cal,taperingtowardsthebase,brown,apicalcellrounded.Conidiogenouscellsandco‐
nidiawerenotobserved.Teleomorph:Notobserved.
Habitatandgeographicaldistribution:Saprobeondecayingwood,knownfromPor‐
tugal.EnvironmentaldataindicateanotheroccurrenceinthesoilinTasmaniainthe
mixedforestbiomewithEucalyptussp.asadominantplantspecies(Figures6and7)(Ta‐
bleS2).
Notes:ZanclosporaclavulataiscloselyrelatedtoZ.falcata,Z.ibericaandZ.novae‐zea‐
landiae.Initially,itwaslistedunderZ.iberica[9],butthepresentfour‐genephylogeny
revealeditisaseparatespecies(Figure3).Itswildtypeisunknown,socomparisonwith
otherspeciesissomewhatlimited.Theherbariummaterial,whichisnolongeravailable,
containedonlythestanjehughesia‐likesynanamorph,butZanclosporaandthestan‐
jehughesia‐likesynanamorphswereformedonCMAwithU.dioicastems.Invitro,conid‐
iophoresofZ.clavulataproducedonlymicroconidiathatarenarrower(0.7–1μm)thanin
otherspecies(1–2.5μm).WhencomparedtootherZanclosporathatexistinculture,itis
thefastest‐growingspecies.
ZanclosporafalcataRéblová&Hern.‐Restr.,sp.nov.MycoBankMB837799.(Figures12
and13).
Typus:NEWZEALAND,WestCoast,Westlanddistrict,MountAspiringNational
Park,Haast,RoaringBillyFallsWalk,ondecayingwood,22March2005,M.RéblováM.R.
3297/NZ567(holotypePDD118746,cultureex‐typeICMP23702=CBS147012).
Etymology:Falcate(Latin)fromfalx(sickle)meaningshapedlikeasickle,and‐ate
(resembling),referringtotheshapeofconidia.

Microorganisms2021,9,70627of60



Figure12.Zanclosporafalcata(ICMP23702ex‐type).(A)AscomataassociatedwithZanclosporaanamorphandstan‐
jehughesia‐likesynanamorph.(B,C)Stanjehughesia‐likeconidiophores.(D)Verticalsectionoftheascomalwall.(E–G)
Asci.(H)Paraphyses.(I)Ascalapexwithanapicalring.(J)Emptyasciwithapicalrings.(K,L)Ascospores.(M–P)Conid‐
iophores.(Q–S)Conidiogenouscells.(T,U)Macroconidia.(V)Conidiophoreapicescoveredwithexcrescences.Images:
(A–V)onthenaturalsubstrate.Bars:(A,B)=250μm;(C,D,M–P)=20μm;(E–L,Q–V)=10μm.

Microorganisms2021,9,70628of60



Figure13.Zanclosporafalcata(ICMP23702ex‐type).(A–C)Stanjehughesia‐likeconidiophores(arrowindicatesphialides).
(D–F)ReducedZanclosporaconidiophores.(G)Microconidia.Images:(A–G)onMLAafter4–8weeks.Bars:(A–F)=10μm;
(G)=5μm.
Descriptiononthenaturalsubstrate:Colonieseffuse,hairy,ochre‐browntobrown,
consistingofstanjehughesia‐likeandZanclosporaconidiophoresandascomata.Teleo‐
morph:Ascomata210–250μmdiam,230–290μmhigh,semi‐immersedtosuperficial,sol‐
itaryorinsmallgroups,conical,papillate,darkbrowntoblack,glabrous.Ostioleperiph‐
ysate.Ascomatalwallfragile,two‐layered,31–41μmthick;anouterlayercomposedof
darkbrown,thick‐walled,polyhedralcells,aninnerlayercomposedofsubhyalinetohy‐
aline,thin‐walled,elongated,compressedcells.Paraphyses3–5μmwide,taperingto2–
2.5μm,hyaline,branching,anastomosing,septate.Asci(104–)112–125(–132)×11–13.5μm
(mean±SD=118.5±7.5×12.3±0.9μm),cylindrical‐clavate,short‐stipitate,apically
broadlyrounded,withanon‐amyloidapicalannulus3–3.5μmwide,1.5(–2)μmhigh.
Ascospores23.5–28.5(–30)×4.5–5.5μm(mean±SD=26.3±1.2×4.8±0.3μm),fusiform,
3‐septate,notconstrictedatthesepta,hyaline,smooth,2‐seriateorobliquely1‐seriate
withintheascus.Anamorph:Conidiophores210–350(–500)μmlong,5–7.5μmwide
abovethebase,6–8μmwideatthefertileregion,erect,setiform,taperinggraduallyup‐
wards,straightorgentlybent,simpleorbranched,themainstalkoftenwithseveralpri‐
marybranchescurvedupwardsatalmostarightangle,secondaryandtertiarybranches
alsodeveloped,septate,browntoreddish‐brownandthick‐walledtowardsthebase,light
browntoyellow‐brownandthinner‐walledtowardstheapex,theupperpartofthemain
stalkandbranchesornamentedwithnumerouscolourlessexcrescences,apexsterile,sub‐
acute.Conidiogenouscellsmonophialidic,9–12.5×4–5.5μm,taperingto1–1.5μmjust
belowthecollarette,discrete,lateral,arrangedingroupsof2–5in1–3whorls,ovoidto
lageniform,subhyalinetolightbrown,smooth;collarettes1.5–2.5μmwide,1–1.5μm
deep.Macroconidia18–24.5×2.5–3μm(mean±SD=21.2±2.1×2.8±0.2μm),falcate,
curved,hyaline,smooth,accumulatinginwhitetoyellowmassenvelopingthewholefer‐
tileregion.Synanamorph:stanjehughesia‐like.Conidiophores155–270μmlong,(4–)5–6.5
μmwideabovethebase,(9–)11–13μmwideatthemidsection,erect,unbranched,straight
orbent,septate,cylindricaltocylindrical‐fusiform,taperingtowardsthebase,gradually
taperingtowardstheapex,darkbrowntoreddish‐brown,palebrowntoyellow‐brown
towardstheapex,roundedapically.Conidiogenouscellsandconidiawerenotobserved.

Microorganisms2021,9,70629of60


Culturecharacteristics:OnCMDcolonies11–12mmdiam,circular,flat,marginen‐
tiretoweaklyfimbriate,velvety‐lanose,darkgrey‐brown,reverseofthesamecolour.On
MLAcolonies13–14mmdiam,circular,flat,marginfimbriate,velvety‐lanose,aerialhy‐
phaewithnumerouscolourlessexudates,darkgrey‐brown,reverseblack.OnOAcolo‐
nies18–20mmdiam,circular,flat,marginfimbriatetorhizoidal,slightlysubsurface,
sparselylanosebecomingcobwebby,hyphaetowardstheperipherydecumbent,grey‐
browntodarkbrown,reversedarkolivaceousgreytoblack.OnPCAcolonies22–25mm
diam,circular,flat,slightlyconvexcentrally,marginfimbriate,lanose,somewhatfloccose,
beigetolightbrown,aerialhyphaewithnumerousminutecolourlessexudates,reverse
darkgrey‐browntoblack.SporulationwasmoderateonMLAandPCA,absentonCMD
andOA.
DescriptiononPCA:Colonieseffuse,vegetativehyphaebrown,septate,branched,
2–4μmwide.Anamorph:Conidiophores80−120μmlong,5−6(−7.5)μmwideabovethe
base,7−8μmwideatthefertileregion,reducedandlesscomplexthanonthenatural
substrate,unbranched,lightbrowntoreddish‐brown,setiform,taperingtowardsthe
apex,smooth,sometimesapexdevelopsintoaphialide.Conidiogenouscellsmono‐
phialidic,8–9×3.5–4.5μm,taperingto1.5–2μmjustbelowthecollarette,discrete,lateral,
arrangedingroupsof2–4in1–3whorls,orterminal;collarettes1.5–2μmwide,0.5–1μm
deep.Macroconidiaabsent.Microconidia5−6×1(–1.5)μm(mean±SD=5.4±0.5×1.1±
0.2μm),clavatetooblong‐clavate,hyaline,smooth.Synanamorph:stanjehughesia‐like.
Conidiophoresasonthenaturalsubstrate,210–310μmlong,4.5–6.5μmwideabovethe
base,8.5–11μmwideatthemidsection,occasionallywith1–2lateralphialides.Conidia
notobserved.Teleomorph:Notobserved.
Othermaterialexamined:NEWZEALAND,WestCoast,Bullerdistrict,VictoriaFor‐
estPark,Reefton,BigRiverInanganuatrack;ondecayingwoodofNothofagussp.,6March
2003,M.RéblováMR2723/NZ224B(PDD119365).
Habitatandgeographicaldistribution:Saprobeondecayingwood,knownfromNew
Zealand.
Notes:ZanclosporafalcatacanbeconfusedwithZ.novae‐zelandiae,especiallyinchar‐
actersofconidiophores,conidiaandascospores.Althoughbothspeciesshareapical,seti‐
formpartsofconidiophoresandbranchesornamentedwithnumerouscolourlessexcres‐
cencesandfalcateconidia,Z.falcatadiffersfromZ.novae‐zelandiaewithshorter,more
stronglycurvedconidiaandshorterconidiophoresofthestanjehughesia‐likesynana‐
morph.Weobservedthattheexcrescencesmaybeabsentonsomeconidiophoresina
singlecollectionofZ.falcata.Theirteleomorphsarecomparable,theasciofZ.falcatatend
tobeshorter,(104–)112–125(–132)×11–13.5μmvs(120–)126–139(–148)×11–12(–13)μm,
thantheasciofZ.novae‐zelandiae.ForafullcomparisonofbothspeciesseenotesofZ.
novae‐zelandiaeandTable2.
ZanclosporafalcataisalsosimilartoZ.lateriphiala,especiallyinanamorphiccharacters,
andrepresentsitscounterpartintheSouthernHemisphere.Bothspecieshaveasimilar
sizeofconidiophoresandconidiabutdifferinconidiophoreornamentation,whichislack‐
inginZ.lateriphiala.Besides,bothspeciesarewelldistinguishableinthesizeofasciand
ascospores,whicharesmallerinZ.lateriphiala.Inthefour‐geneanalysis(Figure3),Z.fal‐
cata,Z.lateriphialaandZ.novae‐zelandiaewereresolvedasseparatespecies.
ZanclosporaibericaHern.‐Restr.,J.Mena&Gené,Stud.Mycol.86:85.2017.(Figure14).

Microorganisms2021,9,70630of60



Figure14.Zanclosporaiberica.(A)Stanjehughesia‐likeandZanclosporaconidiophores(arrowsindicatephialides).(B)Stan‐
jehughesia‐likeconidiophore.(C,D,F–I)Zanclosporaconidiophores.(E)Conidiogenouscells,indetail.(J–L)Reducedand
lesscomplexZanclosporaconidiophores.(M)Microconidia.(N–P)Macroconidia.Images:(A–I,N–P)onOAwithU.dioica
stemsafter3months;(J–M)onOAafter3months;(A–D,I,K–M,O,P)fromCBS130426(ex‐type);(E–H,J,N)fromCBS
130280.Bars:(A–D,F–I)=20μm;(J–P)=10μm.

Microorganisms2021,9,70631of60


Culturecharacteristics:OnCMDcolonies10–12mmdiam,circular,slightlyconvex,
marginfimbriate,velvety‐lanose,cobwebbytowardsthemargin,grey‐browncentrally,
darkbrownatthemargin,reversedarkbrown.OnMLAcolonies12–20mmdiam,circu‐
lar,slightlyconvex,marginfimbriateorweaklyundulate,lanose,floccoseatthemargin,
grey‐brown,darkbrownatthemargin,reversedarkbrowntonearlyblack.OnOAcolo‐
nies10–14mmdiam,circular,flat,marginfimbriate,lanose,floccose,cobwebbytowards
themargin,darkbrowntoolivaceousbrown,reversedarkgreytonearlyblack.OnPCA
colonies11–13mmdiam,circular,flatorslightlyconvex,marginfimbriatetorhizoidal,
velvety‐lanose,beigecentrally,darkbrowntorussettowardsthemargin,withadark
brownouterzoneofsubmergedgrowth,reversedarkbrown‐grey.Sporulationwasabun‐
dantonOAwithU.dioicastems,absentonCMD,MLA,OAandPCA.
DescriptiononOAwithU.dioicastems:Colonieseffuse,hairy,vegetativehyphae
semi‐immersed,hyaline,subhyalinetobrown,septate,branched,1.5–3.5μmwide.Ana‐
morph:ConidiophoresarisingfrommyceliumonUrticastems128–318μmlong,4.5–6μm
wideabovethebase,6.5–9μmwideatthefertileregion,erect,setiform,taperinggradu‐
allyupwards,straightorgentlybent,branchedorsimple,themainstalkusuallywithone
orseveralprimarybranchescurvedupwards,secondaryandtertiarybranchesmayalso
develop,septate,darkbrownandthick‐walledtowardsthebase,lightbrowntoyellow‐
brownandthinner‐walledtowardstheapex,smooth,apicalcellsterile,subacute.Conid‐
iophoresarisingfrommyceliumonagar52–96μmlong,3.5–4.5μmwide,4–5μmwideat
thefertileregion,lesscomplex,unbranched,sometimesreducedtosingleconidiogenous
cells.Conidiogenouscellsmonophialidic,8–12.5×4.5–6.5μm,taperingto1–2.5μm,dis‐
crete,lateral,sometimespercurrentlyelongating,arrangedingroupsof2–5in1–3(–5)
whorls,ovoidtolageniform,subhyalinetolightbrown,smooth;collarettesindistinct,1.5–
2×0.5(–1)μm.Macroconidia(12.5–)15.5–25×2–3μm(mean±SD=20.2±2.2×2.4±0.3
μm),falcate,slightlyobtuseatthebasalend,narrowlyroundedattheapicalend,aseptate,
sometimesinflatednearthebase,hyaline,smooth.Microconidia(5–)6–10.5×1.5–2μm
(mean±SD=8.2±1.6×1.6±0.2μm),clavatetooblong‐clavate,straightorgentlycurved,
aseptate,hyaline,smooth.Synanamorph:stanjehughesia‐like.Conidiophores340–660(–
920)μmlong,(3.5–)4.5–6μmwideabovethebaseand9–14μmwideatthemidsection,
erect,sinuous,septate,sometimesinflated,sterile,rarelywith1–2lageniformphialides
nearthebase,taperingtowardsthebase,graduallytaperingtowardsthetip,darkbrown,
lightbrowntoyellow‐browntowardstheapex,apicalcellbluntlyornarrowlyrounded.
Conidianotobserved.Teleomorph:Notobserved.
Materialexamined:SPAIN,Asturias,PicosdeEuropaNationalPark,LaMolina,on
deadwoodofunidentifiedplant,July2010,M.Hernández‐Restrepo,J.Mena‐Portales&
J.Guarro(holotypeCBSH‐22995,cultureex‐typeCBS130426=FMR11584).SPAIN,Ga‐
licia,LosAncaresNaturalreserve,plantdebris,12Aug.2010,M.Hernández‐Restrepo,J.
Mena‐Portales&J.Guarro(cultureCBS130280=FMR11022=IMI500756).
Habitatandgeographicaldistribution:Thespeciesisasaprobeondecayedplantma‐
terialandissofarknownonlyfromSpain([9],thisstudy).
Notes:ForadditionaldescriptionandillustrationsrefertoHernández‐Restrepoetal.
[9].AlthoughconidiophoressimilartoStanjehughesiaweretheonlyanamorphicstructure
observedonthenaturalsubstrate,Zanclosporaandstanjehughesia‐like(Figure14A,B)co‐
nidiophoreswereobservedonUrticastemsinvitro.TheZanclosporaconidiophores
matchedwelltheprotologuebutvariedinsize.Thosewhichdevelopedfrommycelium
onagarweresmallerandlesscomplex(Figure14J–L)thanthoseformeddirectlyonUrtica
stems(Figure14C–I).Thesmallerconidiophoresandsingleconidiogenouscellsproduced
onlymicroconidia.
ZanclosporaibericaappearstobemostsimilartoZ.novae‐zelandiae.Becausethe
wildtypeofZ.ibericaisunknown,bothspeciescanonlybecomparedinculture.Thesterile
apicalpartoftheconidiophorestalkandbranchesissmoothinbothspecies.However,it
isornamentedwithdisk‐likeexcrescencesinZ.novae‐zelandiaeonthenaturalsubstrate

Microorganisms2021,9,70632of60


(Figures15Jand16E,F).Intheabsenceofthisdiagnosticcharacter,thespeciesarepracti‐
callyindistinguishablewhengrowninculture.Thesizeoftheirmacroconidiaoverlaps
significantly,i.e.(12.5–)15.5–25×2–3μm(thisstudy)and12.5–22×2–3μmfideHernández‐
Restrepoetal.[9]inZ.ibericavs16–24×(1.5–)2–3μminZ.novae‐zelandiae(ICMP15781ex‐
epitypestrain).Onthenaturalsubstrate,themacroconidiaofZ.novae‐zelandiaetendtobe
longer,24–28.5×(2–)2.5–3μmintheepitype(PDD80663),23.5–39×2.5–3.5μmintheholotype
(PDD20727).Thus,weexpectthatalsomacroconidiaofZ.ibericamaybelongerinnatural
conditions.IncomparisontoZ.novae‐zelandiae,theconidiophoresofZ.ibericaappearedtobe
lessflexuous,andconidiawereusuallyslightlyinflatedtowardsthebasalend.
Zanclosporajonesii(R.H.Perera,Maharachch.&K.D.Hyde)Réblová,A.N.Mill.&
Hern.‐Restr.,comb.nov.MycoBankMB837800.
Basionym:ChaetosphaeriajonesiiR.H.Perera,Maharachch.&K.D.Hyde,Mycosphere
7:1311.2016.
Habitatandgeographicaldistribution:Thespeciesisasaprobeondecorticatedwood,
knownsofarfromAsiainThailand[86].Environmentaldataconfirmanotheroccurrence
inthesoilinGuangdongprovince,southeasternChina,intheforestbiomewithSchimasu‐
perbaandMicheliamacclureiasthedominantplantspecies(Figures5and7)(TableS2).
Notes:Fordescriptionandillustrations,seePereraetal.[86].TheZanclosporaconid‐
iophoreswerenotobserved,thestanjehughesia‐likeconidiophores,probablymistaken
forsetae,occurredonascomataandthenaturesubstratearoundthem(seeDiscussion).In
thefour‐genephylogenetictree(Figure3),Z.jonesiiclusteredasasistertoZ.tropicalis.
Bothspeciessharecylindricalascosporesbentnearthebasalend,butdifferintheirsize;
theascosporesofZ.jonesiiareshorterandnarrower,16.2–17.7×2.8–3.6μmfidePereraet
al.[86]thanthoseofZ.tropicalis,19–26×3.2–6.3μmfideFernándezandHuhndorf[12].
Zanclosporalateriphiala(F.A.Fernández&Huhndorf)Réblová,A.N.Mill.&Hern.‐Re‐
str.,comb.nov.MycoBankMB837801.
Basionym:ChaetosphaerialateriphialaF.A.Fernández&Huhndorf,Fung.Divers.18:
24.2005.
Culturecharacteristics:OnCMDcolonies11–14mmdiam,circular,raised,margin
fimbriate,lanose,cobwebbyatthemargin,colonycentrebeige,darkbrownatthemargin,
laterwithadistinctdarkbrownouterzoneofsubmergedgrowth,reversedarkbrownto
nearlyblack.OnMLAcolonies15–17mmdiam,circular,convex,marginfimbriate,la‐
nose,floccose,aerialmyceliumwithnumerousminutecolourlessexudates,beige,brown
atthemargin,reversedarkbrown.OnOAcolonies8–9mmdiam,circular,flat,margin
fimbriate,cobwebbybecomingmucoid,smoothtowardstheperiphery,mainlycompris‐
ingofsubmergedmycelium,olivaceousblack,reverseblack.OnPCAcolonies10–11mm
diam,circular,flat,marginfimbriatetorhizoidal,lanose,floccose,beige‐browncentrally,
withaprominentdarkbrowntorussetouterzoneofthesubmergedgrowth,reversedark
brown.Sporulationwasabsentonallmedia.
Materialexamined:USA,Wisconsin,GreenCo.,NewGlarusStatePark,13Sep.1995,
ondecayingwood(20cmlog),S.M.HuhndorfS.M.H.1546‐1(cultureCBS147014).USA,
Illinois,FormanCypressSwamp,NWofBelknap,JohnsonCounty,Illinois,onsubmerged
decayedwood,9April1969,J.L.Crane80‐69(ILLS43049).USA,Illinois,JacksonHollow,
PopeCounty,ondecayedwood,9Apr.1969,J.L.Crane25‐69(ILLS35030).Ibid.,J.L.Crane
27‐69(ILLS34732).
Habitatandgeographicaldistribution:Saprobeondecorticatedwood,knownfrom
NorthAmericaintheUSA(Illinois,Indiana,NorthCarolina,Wisconsin)[12].
Notes:Fordescriptionandillustrations,seeFernándezandHuhndorf[12].Accord‐
ingtotheseauthors,repeatedtransfersofmyceliuminvitroresultedinthelossofthetypical
Zanclosporaconidiophores;theywerereducedtosingleconidiogenouscellsorwhorlsof

Microorganisms2021,9,70633of60


cellsonhyphaereminiscentofPhaeostalagmusandproducedsmaller,clavateconidia.Itisin
agreementwithourobservationsinotherZanclospora,conidiophoresformedonagarare
generallylesscomplexandproduceonlymicroconidia.Zanclosporalateriphialaissimilarto
Z.falcatabutdiffersinthesmoothsetiformpartofconidiophoresandbranchesandsmaller
asciandascospores.Thestanjehughesia‐likesynanamorphhasnotbeenyetreportedforZ.
lateriphiala.Forafullcomparisonwithotherspecies,seeTable2.
ThreecollectionsofZ.novae‐zelandiaeondecayingwood(ILLS34732,ILLS35030,
ILLS43049),reportedbySchoknechtandCrane[21]fromtheUSA,havebeenrevised.
Basedonthepublisheddescription,theconidia(15.5–23×2.3–3.3μm)andoverallchar‐
acteristicsofconidiophoresandphialidesmatchedthoseofZ.falcataandZ.lateriphiala.
However,theornamentationofconidiophoreswasnotgiven.Examinationofthesecol‐
lectionsrevealedthattheuppersetiformpartsofconidiophoresandbranchesaresmooth
andtheconidiophoresaremorerobustunlikethoseofZ.falcata.Thesecollectionsrepre‐
sentZ.lateriphiala,whichiscommoninthisregion(Figure7).
Zanclosporanovae‐zelandiaeS.Hughes&W.B.Kendr.,N.Z.J.Bot.3:152.1965.(Figures
15and16).
Typification:NEWZEALAND,Westland,LakeIanthe,Pukekura,ondecayingbark
andwoodofWeinmanniaracemosa,8April1963,S.Hughes(holotypePDD20737).NEW
ZEALAND,NorthCanterbury,Selwyndistrict,Arthur’sPassNationalPark,ondecaying
woodandbarkofNothofagussolandrivar.cliffortioides×fusca,29September2004,J.A.
CooperJAC9132(epitypeMBT394463designatedhere,PDD118975asdriedcultureon
CMAwithU.dioicastems)(PDD80663voucher,cultureex‐epitypeICMP15781).
Descriptiononthenaturalsubstrate:Colonieseffuse,hairy,golden‐browntoochre‐
browntolightbrown,consistingofstanjehughesia‐likeandZanclosporaconidiophores
andascomata.Teleomorph:Ascomata230–270μmdiam,250–300μmhigh,superficial,
basallyimmersed,solitaryorinsmallgroups,conical,papillate,darkbrowntoblack,gla‐
brous.Ostioleperiphysate.Ascomatalwallfragile,two‐layered,28–35μmthick;outer
layercomposedofdarkbrown,thick‐walled,polyhedralcells,aninnerlayercomposed
ofsubhyalinetohyaline,thin‐walled,elongated,compressedcells.Paraphyses3–4.5μm
wide,taperingto1.5–2.5μm,hyaline,branching,anastomosing,septate.Asci(120–)126–
139(–148)×11–12(–13)μm(mean±SD=132.9±4.6×11.9±0.6μm),cylindrical‐clavate,
short‐stipitate,apicallybroadlyroundedtoobtuse,withanon‐amyloidapicalannulus3–
3.5μmwide,ca.2μmhigh.Ascospores25–29.5(–31)×4–5μm(mean±SD=27.9±1.5×
4.6±0.3μm),fusiform,3‐septate,notconstrictedatthesepta,hyaline,smooth,2‐seriate
orobliquely1‐seriatewithintheascus.Anamorph:Conidiophores360–450μmlong,5.5–
7μmwideabovethebase,5.5–6.5μmwideatthefertileregion,erect,setiform,tapering
graduallyupwards,straightorbent,simpleorsparselybranched,themainstalkwithpri‐
marybranchescurvedupwardsatthealmostrightangle,secondaryandtertiarybranches
develop,septate,dark‐browntoreddish‐brownandthick‐walledtowardsthebase,light
browntoyellow‐brownandthinner‐walledtowardstheapex,theupperpartofthemain
stalkandbrancheswithcolourlessexcrescences,apexsubacute,sterile.Conidiogenous
cellsmonophialidic,10–13×(3.5–)4–4.5μm,taperingto1–1.5μmjustbelowthecollarette,
discrete,lateral,arrangedingroupsof2–5in1–3whorls,ovoidtolageniform,subhyaline
tolightbrown,smooth;collarettesusuallyindistinct,ca.1.5μmwide,ca.1μmdeep.Mac‐
roconidia24–28.5×(2–)2.5–3μm(mean±SD=26.4±1.4×2.5±0.2μm),falcatetosome‐
whatcymbiform,gentlycurved,aseptate,hyaline,smooth,filledwithnumerousdrops,
accumulatinginawhitishtoyellowmassenvelopingthewholefertileregion.Synana‐
morph:stanjehughesia‐like.Conidiophores364–675μmlong,4.5–5μmwideabovethe
base,8–10.5μmwideatthemidsection,sometimesinflatedinthe

Microorganisms2021,9,70634of60



Figure15.Zanclosporanovae‐zelandiae.(A–C,I)Conidiophores.(D)Phialideswithconidia.(E,F)Conidia.(G)Ascomata.
(H)Verticalsectionoftheascomalwall.(J)Anastomosingconidiophoreswithexcrescences,indetail.(K)Asci.(L)Ascal
apex.(M)Paraphyses.Images:(A–M)onthenaturalsubstrate;(A–F)fromPDD20737(holotype);(G–M)fromICMP
15112.Bars:(A,B)=100μm;(C)=50μm;(D,E,J–M)=10μm;(F)=5μm;(G)=250μm;(H)=20μm;(I)=25μm.


Microorganisms2021,9,70635of60



Figure16.Zanclosporanovae‐zelandiae.(A,B)Stanjehughesia‐likeconidiophores.(C–E)Zanclosporaconidiophores.(F,H–L)
Conidiophoresandbrancheswithphialidesinwhorls.(G)Apical,setiformpartoftheconidiophorewithexcrescences,in
detail.(M–O)Singlephialidesorlesscomplexconidiophoreswithphialidesinverticillatearrangement.(P,Q)Macro‐
conidia.(R)Microconidia.Images:(A,C,D,I–L,Q)onCMAwithU.dioicastemsafter3months;(B,E–H,P)onthenatural
substrate;(M–O,R)onMLAafter6weeks;(A,C,D,I–L,M–O,Q,R)fromICMP15781(ex‐epitype);(B,E–H,P)fromPDD
80663.Bars:(A–E)=20μm;(F–R)=10μm.

Microorganisms2021,9,70636of60


middle,erect,unbranched,straightorslightlysinuous,septate,cylindricaltocylindrical‐
fusiform,taperingtowardsthebase,graduallytaperingtowardstheapex,darkbrownto
reddish‐brown,darkestnearthebase,apicalcelllightbrowntoyellow‐brown,rounded.
Conidiogenouscellsandconidiawerenotobserved.
Culturecharacteristics:OnCMDcolonies11–12mmdiam,circulartoirregular,flat,
marginfimbriate,velvety‐lanoseatthecentrebecomingcobwebbytowardsthemargin,
colonycentreolivaceousbrown,olivaceousbeigeatthemargin,reversedarkbrown.On
MLAcolonies11–12mmdiam,circular,slightlyconvex,marginfimbriate,velvety,cob‐
webbyatthemargin,colonycentrebeige,darkbrownatthemargin,reversedarkbrown.
OnOAcolonies6–7mmdiam,circulartoirregular,flat,marginfimbriatetorhizoidal,
cobwebbycentrally,smoothtowardstheperiphery,darkolivaceousbrown,lightbrown
pigmentdiffusingintotheagar,reversebrown.OnPCAcolonies5–7mmdiam,circular
toirregular,flat,marginfimbriate,velvety,sometimesmucoidatthecentre,beige‐brown,
withadarkbrownouterzoneofsubmergedgrowth,reversedarkbrown.Sporulationwas
absentonCMDandOA,moderateonPCAandMLA,abundantonCMAwithUrticastems.
DescriptiononCMAwithU.dioicastems:Colonieseffuse,vegetativehyphaesubhy‐
alinetolightbrown,smooth,semi‐immersed,branched,septate,1.5–3μmwide.Ana‐
morph:ConidiophoresarisingfromUrticastems277–380μmlong,4.5–5.5(–6)μmwide
abovethebase,6.5–8μmwideatthefertileregion,septate,branched,smooth,apexsub‐
acute.Conidiophoresarisingfrommyceliumonagar20–45×2–2.5μm,lesscomplex,sub‐
hyalinetolightbrown,simpleorbranched,septate,occasionallyreducedtosingleconid‐
iogenouscellsorawhorlofseveralphialides.Conidiogenouscellsmonophialidic,(8.5–
)9–13(–14.5)×2.5–3.5μm,taperingto1.5–2μm,discrete,lateral,arrangedingroupsof2–
5in1–4(–5)whorls;collarettes1.5–2μwide,ca.0.5μmdeep.Macroconidia16–24×(1.5–
)2–3μm(mean±SD=19.4±2.0×2.4±0.3μm),falcate,straightorgentlycurved,slightly
truncateatthebasalend,taperingtowardstheapicalend,aseptate,hyaline,smooth.Mi‐
croconidia5–8×1.5–2μm(mean±SD=6.9±1.2×1.7±0.2μm),clavatetooblong‐clavate,
straightorgentlycurved,aseptate,hyaline,smooth.Synanamorph:stanjehughesia‐like.
Conidiophoresasonthenaturalsubstrate,605–800μmlong,5–5.5μmwideabovethe
base,6.5–7.5μmwideatthemidsection.Conidiogenouscellsandconidiawerenotob‐
served.Teleomorph:Notobserved.
Othermaterialexamined:NEWZEALAND,WestCoast,Bullerdistrict,VictoriaFor‐
estPark,BlackPointsca.1.5kmSEofReefton,MurrayCreektrack,ondecayingwood
andtheinnersideofthebarkofNothofagussp.,21February2003,M.RéblováandK.A.
SeifertM.R.2589/NZ54(PDD119105,cultureICMP15112).
Habitatandgeographicaldistribution:Zanclosporanovae‐zelandiaeisasaprobeonde‐
cayingwoodandbarkofLibocedrusbidwi,Nothofagusfusca,N.solandrivar.cliffortioides×
fusca,N.truncata,Oenocarpussp.,Weinmanniaracemosaandotherunidentifiedhosts.Itis
knownfromBrazil,Canada,India,Japan,NewZealand,Taiwan,USAandVietnam
([1,8,20,22,23,88–90],thisstudy).
Notes:ExaminationoftheholotypeofZ.novae‐zelandiaeandthreecollectionstenta‐
tivelyidentifiedasthisspeciesoriginatingfromNewZealand(PDD80663,PDD118746,
PDD119105),andcomparisonoftheirDNAsequences,revealedtwoseparatespecieslin‐
eages.Itconfirmedoursuspicionthatitmaycontaincrypticspecies,basedondifferent
morphologicalprofilesofZ.novae‐zelandiaeintheliterature.Althoughtwocollections,
PDD80663andPDD118746,fitintotheprotologueofZ.novae‐zelandiae[1],theydiffered
mainlyinthesizeofconidiathatdidnotoverlapandthesizeoftheassociatedstan‐
jehughesia‐likeconidiophores.HughesandKendrick[1]introducedZ.novae‐zelandiae
withconidiophores155–550(–750)μmlongandconidia18–35×1.6–2.6μm,citingarela‐
tivelywiderangeofconidiallengths.TheexaminationoftheholotypeofZ.novae‐zelandiae
PDD20737revealedafunguswithconidia23.5–39×2.5–3.5μm(mean=29.1×3.1μm),
conidiophores350–520μmlong,thestanjehughesia‐likeconidiophoreswerenotob‐
served.ThespecimenPDD80663hadconidia24–28.5×(2–)2.5–3μm,thestanjehughesia‐
likesynanamorphwaspresentwithconidiophores364–675μmlong.Theotherspecimen

Microorganisms2021,9,70637of60


PDD118746hadshorterconidia18–24.5×2.5–3μm,yetwithintherangegiveninthe
originaldescription,andshorterstanjehughesia‐likeconidiophores155–270μmlong.
Bothcollectionsareotherwisehighlysimilarandtheirconidiophoreshavedistinctcol‐
ourlessexcrescencesontheapicalsetiformpart.Inthefour‐geneanalysis,theywere
shownasseparate,thoughcloselyrelatedlineages(Figure3).Giventheirdistinctconidial
andsynanamorphmorphologyaccompaniedbymoleculardata,theyaretreatedassib‐
lingspecies.ThespecimenPDD80663(cultureICMP15781)isusedtointerprettheholo‐
typeofZ.novae‐zelandiae.Unfortunately,itsherbariummaterialislargelydepauperate.
Therefore,adriedcultureonCMAwithUrticastems(Figure16)isselectedtoserveasthe
epitype.ThespecimenPDD118746isintroducedasanewspecies,Z.falcata.Thethird
collectionPDD119105isZ.novae‐zelandiae;itcontainedmatureascomataassociatedwith
asomewhatagedcolonyofZanclosporaconidiophoreswithmostlydisintegratedphialides
andabsentconidia(Figure15G–M).Thestanjehughesia‐likeconidiophoreswerenotob‐
served.TheteleomorphofZ.novae‐zelandiaeisreportedforthefirsttime.
ItischallengingtodistinguishZ.novae‐zelandiaefromZ.iberica.Inculture,whengrown
onUrticastems,bothspeciesaresimilarincharactersofconidia,phialidesandsmoothco‐
nidiophores.Forcomparisonofbothspeciesanddiscussion,seenotestoZ.iberica.
InadditiontoNewZealand,Z.novae‐zelandiaewasalsoreportedfromothergeo‐
graphicalareas(Figure7).However,allofthesecollectionslackedtheornamentationof
theconidiophorewall,orthischaracterwasnotmentionedinthedescription[8,20–23].
Besides,thesizeofconidiavariedamongthesecollectionsandcorrespondedtothelong‐
sporedZ.novae‐zelandiaes.str.,thenewlysegregatedshort‐sporedZ.falcata,bothfrom
NewZealand,butalsotoZ.lateriphialafromNorthAmerica.Examinationofthreecollec‐
tionsidentifiedasZ.novae‐zelandiaebySchoknechtandCrane[21]fromtheUSAwith
smoothconidiophoresandconidia15.5–23×2.3–3.3μmrevealedtheyrepresentZ.lat‐
eriphiala.ThespecimenofZ.novae‐zelandiaerecordedfromBrazilbyAlmeidaetal.[8]has
conidiasignificantlyshorter(10–16.5×1–2μm)thanZ.falcata,Z.lateriphialaandZ.novae‐
zelandiae,andlikelyrepresentsanothercrypticspeciesintheZ.novae‐zelandiaespecies
complex.Interestingly,Mel’niketal.[23]recordedaspecimenofZ.novae‐zelandiaefrom
Vietnamwithexclusivelyunbranched,smoothconidiophoresandconidia22–24(–26)×2–
2.4μm.AlthoughweareawareofinconsistenciesinthepublishedphenotypesofZ.novae‐
zelandiae,theserecordsarelistedabovebutneedtobeverified.Wepresentthefirstmo‐
leculardataofZ.novae‐zelandiae;however,moreconcentratedsamplingisrequiredtoas‐
sessitsglobalgeographicaldistribution.Weshouldalsoconsiderthepossibilitythatthe
speciesisendemictoNewZealand.
Zanclosporaphaeostalacta(Réblová)Réblová,A.N.Mill.&Hern.‐Rest.,comb.nov.My‐
coBankMB837802.
Basionym:ChaetosphaeriaphaeostalactaRéblová,Stud.Mycol.50:183.2004.
Culturecharacteristics:OnCMDcolonies8–10mmdiam,circular,slightlyconvex,
marginweaklyfimbriate,velvety,darkbeige‐brown,reversedarkbrown.OnMLAcolo‐
nies7–8mmdiam,circular,slightlyconvex,marginentire,velvety‐lanose,darkbeige‐
brown,darkeratthemargin,reversedarkbrown.OnOAcolonies4–5mmdiam,circular,
flat,marginentiretoweaklyfimbriate,lanose,olivaceousbeige,reversedarkbrown.On
PCAcolonies4–5mmdiam,circular,convex,marginentiretoweaklyfimbriate,lanose,
beige‐brownwithadarkbrownouterzoneofsubmergedgrowth,reversedarkbrown.
Sporulationabsentonallmedia;moderateonPCAafterprolongedincubation.
Materialexamined:NEWZEALAND,WestCoast,Westlanddistrict,Ross,Totara
Rivervalley,Totaraforest,ondecorticatedwoodofabranch,7March2003,M.Réblová
MR2735/NZ237(holotypePDD78274,cultureex‐typeICMP15137=CBS114554).
Habitatandgeographicaldistribution:Saprobeondecayingwood,knownfromNew
Zealand[85].

Microorganisms2021,9,70638of60


Notes:Fordescriptionandillustrations,refertoRéblová[85].TheZanclosporaorstan‐
jehughesia‐likeconidiophoreshavenotbeenobservedinthisspecies;onlyananamorph
ofthephaeostalagmus‐likemorphotypewasformedwhengrowninculture.Itischarac‐
terisedbypigmented,macronematoustosemi‐macronematousconidiophoreswithphi‐
alidesarrangedlaterally,singlyorinverticilli,orterminalonshortbranchesproducing
ellipsoidal,slightlyapiculatemicroconidia.AmongotherZanclospora,Z.phaeostalactapos‐
sessesoneofthelargest(28–)30–38(–40)×5–6(–8)μm,5–7‐septateascospores,whileother
membersofthegenushaveascosporeswithamaximumoffiveseptaandusuallyupto
31μmlong,exceptforZ.aureawithascospores28.5–35.5μmlong.
ZanclosporaramiferaRéblová&Hern.‐Rest.,sp.nov.MycoBankMB837803.(Figure17).
Typus:NEWZEALAND,WestCoast,Westlanddistrict,WestlandTaiPoutiniNa‐
tionalpark,LakeMatheson,ondecayingwoodassociatedwithLentomitellamagna,13
April2005,M.RéblováM.R.2961/NZ781B(holotypePDD118747,cultureex‐typeICMP
22738=CBS147101).
Etymology:Ramus(L)branch,fero(L)carryorbear,referringtothebranchedconidio‐
phores.
Descriptiononthenaturalsubstrate:Colonieseffuse,hairy,darkbrown,composed
ofascomataandthestanjehughesia‐likeconidiophores.Teleomorph:Ascomata220–250
μmdiam,260–300μmhigh,superficial,solitaryorinsmallgroups,conical,papillate,dark
browntoblack,glabrous.Ostioleperiphysate.Ascomatalwallfragile,two‐layered,25–30
μmthick;outerlayercomposedofdarkbrown,thick‐walled,polyhedralcells,aninner
layercomposedofsubhyalinetohyaline,thin‐walled,elongated,compressedcells.Pa‐
raphyses3–5.5μmwide,taperingtoca.2.5μm,hyaline,branching,anastomosing,sep‐
tate.Asci98–125×(10.5–)11–12.5μm(mean±SD=109.0±6.7×12.0±0.5μm),8‐spored,
cylindrical‐clavate,short‐stipitate,apicallybroadlyroundedtoobtuse,withanon‐amy‐
loidapicalannulus3.5–4.5μmwide,1.5–2μmhigh.Ascospores17–24(–25.5)×5.5–7μm
(mean±SD=20.5±2.3×6.3±0.4μm),fusiform,3‐septate,notconstrictedatthesepta,
hyaline,smooth,2‐seriateorpartlyobliquely1‐seriatewithintheascus.Anamorph:Not
observed.Synanamorph:stanjehughesia‐like.Conidiophores155–195μmlong,4–5μm
wideabovethebase,10.5–12(–15)μmwideatthemidsection,erect,growingsparselynear
theascomata,unbranched,slightlysinuous,septate,cylindricaltocylindrical‐fusiform,
taperingtowardsthebase,darkreddish‐brown,apicalcellpaler,rounded.Conidiogenous
cellsandconidiawerenotobserved.
Culturecharacteristics:OnCMDcolonies12–13mmdiam,circular,convex,margin
entiretoweaklyfimbriate,lanose,somewhatfloccose,beigeatthecentre,darkbeigeto
browntowardsthemargin,reversedarkbrown.OnMLAcolonies15–16mmdiam,cir‐
cular,slightlyconvexcentrally,marginweaklyfimbriate,lanose,cobwebbytowardsthe
periphery,zonate,beigeatthecentre,withdarkbrowntodarkreddish‐brownmiddle
zoneandpalerbrownouterzone,reversebrown.OnOAcolonies6–8mmdiam,circular,
flat,marginentire,smoothtocobwebby,darkolivaceousgreywithanouterzoneofa
similarcolourofsubmergedgrowth,reversedarkbrown.OnPCAcolonies5–6mmdiam,
circular,flat,marginweaklyfimbriate,cobwebby,brownwithadarkbrownouterzone
ofsubmergedgrowth,reversedarkbrown.SporulationwasabundantonMLA,absenton
CMD,OAandPCA.

Microorganisms2021,9,70639of60



Figure17.Zanclosporaramifera(ICMP22738ex‐type).(A)Ascomata.(B)Verticalsectionoftheascomalwall.(C)Ascal
apiceswithapicalrings.(D)Stanjehughesia‐likeconidiophores.(E–H)Asciwithascospores.(I)Paraphyses.(J)Ascoge‐
noushyphae.(K–P)Zanclosporaconidiophores.(Q,R)Myceliumwithstanjehughesia‐likeconidiophores.(S)Microconidia.
Images:(A–J)onnaturalsubstrate;(K–S)onMLAafter8weeks.Bars:(A)=250μm;(B,D)=20μm;(C,E–R)=10μm;(S)
=5μm.

Microorganisms2021,9,70640of60


DescriptiononMLA:Colonieseffuse,vegetativehyphaesubhyalinetolightbrown,
septate,branched,2–3.5μmwide.Anamorph:Conidiophores(30–)55–235μmlong,2–3.5
μmwideabovethebase,3.5–6μmwideatthefertileregion,sometimesreducedtosingle
conidiogenouscells,cylindrical‐fusiform,erect,simpleorbranched,withseveralprimary
branches,secondaryandtertiarybranchesoftendevelop,sometimeslongerthanthemain
stalk,septate,straightorslightlybent,lightbrowntolightreddish‐brown,smooth,apical
celldevelopedintoaphialideorsterile,apexrounded,smooth;thefertileregionissitu‐
atedintheupperormiddlepartoftheconidiophore.Conidiogenouscellsmonophialidic,
7–12.5×2.5–4.5μm,taperingto1–1.5μm,discrete,lateral,arisejustbelowthesepta,ap‐
pressedtotheconidiophore,arrangedsinglyoringroupsof2–3in1–3whorls,lagen‐
iform,inolderculturespercurrentlyelongating,lightbrowntosubhyaline,smooth;col‐
larettesindistinct.Macroconidiaabsent.Microconidia5–6×1.5μm(mean±SD=5.5±0.5
×1.5±0.2μm),clavatetooblong‐clavate,straightorgentlycurved,taperingtowardsthe
basalend,roundedattheapicalend,hyaline,smooth.Synanamorph:stanjehughesia‐like.
Conidiophoresasonthenaturalsubstrate,53–154μmlong,3–3.5μmwideabovethebase
and3.5–7.5μmwideatthemidsection,occasionallybranched.Conidiogenouscellsand
conidiawerenotobserved.Teleomorph:Notobserved.
Othermaterialexamined:NEWZEALAND,WestCoast,Greydistrict,VictoriaFor‐
estPark,LakeChristabeltrack,Palmer’sHutca.18kmSWofSpringsJunctiononanun‐
pavedroad,ondecayingwoodofNothofagussp.,1March2003,M.RéblováM.R.2680/NZ
176(cultureICMP15127).
Habitatandgeographicaldistribution:SaprobeondecayingwoodofNothofagussp.
andanotherunidentifiedhost,knownfromNewZealand.
Notes:TheZanclosporaconidiophoreswereformedonlyinculture,thoughlesscom‐
plex,andproducedonlymicroconidia.ZanclosporalateriphialacloselyresemblesZ.ram‐
ifera,butdiffersinslightlyshorter(95–113μm)asci,narrower(4.5–6μm)ascosporesand
charactersoftheZanclosporaanamorphinvitro[12].Whengrowninculture,theconidio‐
phoresofZ.lateriphialaareunbranchedandproducefusiformtooblong‐clavatemacro‐
conidia(11–18×4–4.5μm),unlikethebranchedconidiophoreswithmicroconidiaofZ.
ramifera.
Zanclosporasylvatica(F.A.Fernández&Huhndorf)Réblová,A.N.Mill.&Hern.‐Rest.,
comb.nov.MycoBankMB837804.
Basionym:ChaetosphaeriasylvaticaF.A.Fernández&Huhndorf,Fung.Diver.18:38.
2005.
Habitatandgeographicaldistribution:Saprobeondecayingwood,knownfromthe
Caribbean(PuertoRico)[12].
Notes:Fordescriptionandillustrations,refertoFernándezandHuhndorf[12].Inthe
four‐genephylogeny,Z.sylvaticawasinferredasasistertoZ.jonesiiandZ.tropicalis.Zan‐
closporasylvaticaformsonlythephaeostalagmus‐likesynanamorphinvitro,thestan‐
jehughesia‐likeandZanclosporaconidiophoreswerenotobserved.Thespeciesischarac‐
terisedbysymmetrical,3‐septate,fusiformascosporesincontrasttotheasymmetricalas‐
cosporesofZ.jonesiiandZ.tropicalis.
Zanclosporatropicalis(F.A.Fernández&Huhndorf)Réblová,A.N.Mill.&Hern.‐Rest.,
comb.nov.MycoBankMB837805.
Basionym:ChaetosphaeriatropicalisF.A.Fernández&Huhndorf,FungalDiversity18:
40.2005.
Habitatandgeographicaldistribution:Saprobeondecayingwood,knownonlyfrom
theCaribbean(PuertoRico)andCentralAmerica(CostaRica)[12].

Microorganisms2021,9,70641of60


Notes:Fordescriptionandillustrations,refertoFernándezandHuhndorf[12].A
synanamorphsimilartoPhaeostalagmushasbeenobservedinculture[12],butstan‐
jehughesia‐likeandZanclosporaconidiophoreshavenotbeenyetreportedforthisspecies.
ThereisastrikingresemblancebetweenZ.tropicalisandZ.jonesii[86]inascosporesthat
arecylindricalandbentatthelowerend.However,theascosporesofZ.tropicalisare
longerandwider(19–26×3.2–6.3μmvs16.2–17.7×2.8–3.6μm).Adetailedcomparison
canbefoundinthenotestoZ.jonesii.
ZanclosporaxylophilaRéblová&Hern.‐Rest.,sp.nov.MycoBankMB837808.(Figure18).

Figure18.Zanclosporaxylophila(ICMP22737ex‐type).(A,B)Ascomata.(C–E)Stanjehughesia‐likeconidiophores.(F–H)
Asciwithascospores.(I,J)Ascospores.(K)Ascalapexwithanapicalannulus.(L–N)ReducedZanclosporaconidiophores.
(O)Microconidia.Images:(A–D)onthenaturalsubstrate;(E–M)onPCAafter8weeks.Bars:(A,B)=500μm;(C)=250
μm;(D,L,M)=20μm;(E–K)=10μm.
Typus:NEWZEALAND,WestCoast,Westlanddistrict,MountAspiringNational
Park,HistoricalBridletrack,ondecayingwoodofabranchofNothofagussp.,31March
2005,M.RéblováM.R.3429/NZ710(holotypePDD118748,cultureex‐typeICMP22737).
Etymology:Xýlo(Greek)wood,‐philous(Greek)havinganaffinity,preference,from
philéō(love),referringtowood,whichthefungusinhabits.
Descriptiononthenaturalsubstrate:Colonieseffuse,hairy,darkbrown,consisting
ofstanjehughesia‐likeconidiophoresandascomata.Teleomorph:Ascomata190–230μm
diam,220–280μmhigh,superficial,solitaryorinsmallgroups,subglobosetobroadly

Microorganisms2021,9,70642of60


conical,papillate,darkbrowntoblack,glabrous.Ostioleperiphysate.Ascomatalwall
two‐layered,30–40μmthick;outerlayercomposedofdarkbrown,thick‐walled,polyhe‐
dralcells,aninnerlayercomposedofsubhyalinetohyaline,thin‐walled,polyhedralto
elongated,compressedcells.Paraphyses3–4μmwide,hyaline,branching,anastomosing,
septate.Asci107–130(–141)×12.5–14(–14.5)μm(mean±SD=120.5±11.6×13.1±0.8μm),
cylindrical‐clavate,short‐stipitate,apicallyobtuse,withanon‐amyloidapicalannulus
3.5–4μmwide,1.5–2μmhigh.Ascospores23–28(–31)×(4–)4.5–5.5(–6)μm(mean±SD=
25.2±1.4×5.2±0.3μm),fusiform,straightorslightlyinequilateral,3–5‐septate,notcon‐
strictedatthesepta,hyaline,smooth,2‐seriateorobliquely1‐seriatewithintheascus.An‐
amorph:Notobserved.Synanamorph:stanjehughesia‐like.Conidiophores180–382μm
long,5–6μmwideabovethebase,7.5–10μmwideatthemidsection,erectbecomingde‐
cumbent,sinuous,unbranched,occasionallyunilaterallybranched,usuallybentinthe
lowerhalf,septate,cylindricaltocylindrical‐fusiform,taperingtowardsthebase,brown,
darkbrowntoalmostopaqueatthebase,palertowardstheapex,apicalcelllightyellow‐
browntosubhyaline,rounded.Conidiogenouscellsandconidiawerenotobserved.
Culturecharacteristics:OnCMDcolonies11–14mmdiam,circular,convex,margin
entire,lanose,floccose,brown,darkertowardsthemargin,reversedarkbrown.OnMLA
colonies21–24mmdiam,circular,slightlyconvex,marginentiretoweaklyfimbriate,la‐
nose,cobwebbyatthemargin,lightbrowntoreddish‐brownatthecentre,beige‐brown
towardsthemargin,withadarkbrownouterzoneofsubmergedgrowth,reversedark
brown.OnOAcolonies4–5mmdiam,irregular,flat,marginentire,smoothtocobwebby,
darkbrownduetosubmergedgrowthandlackofaerialmycelium,lightyellow‐brown
pigmentdiffusingintotheagar,reversedarkbrown.OnPCAcolonies11–13mmdiam,
circular,flat,marginfimbriate,lanose,floccosebecomingcobwebbytowardstheperiph‐
ery,beigeatthecentre,darkolivaceousbrowntowardsthemargin,reversedarkbrown.
SporulationwasmoderateonPCA,absentonCMD,MLAandOA.
DescriptioninPCAculture:Colonieseffuse,vegetativehyphaesubhyalinetolight
brown,septate,branched,becominglightlyencrusted,2.5–4μmwide,somehyphaemo‐
nilioid.Anamorph:Conidiophores70–130×3–4.5μm,erect,lightbrown,unbranched,
septate,significantlyreduced.Conidiogenouscellsmonophialidic,9–15×(2.5–)3–4.5(–5)
μm,taperingto1.5–2μmjustbelowthecollarette,integrated,terminalordiscrete,later‐
allyarrangedsinglyorinawhorl;collarette2–3×1.5–2μm.Macroconidiaabsent.Micro‐
conidia(5–)6–8×1.5–2μm(mean±SD=6.6±1.0×1.9±0.2μm),clavatetooblong‐clavate,
obtuseatthebase,straightorgentlycurved,aseptate,hyaline,smooth.Synanamorph:
Notobserved.Teleomorph:Notobserved.
Othermaterialexamined:NEWZEALAND,WestCoast,Westlanddistrict,Kokatahi,
LakeKaniere,DorothyFallsRoad,ondecayingwoodofabranch,12Apr.2005,M.Ré‐
blováM.R.3492/NZ780(PDD118749).
Habitatandgeographicaldistribution:SaprobeondecayingwoodofNothofagussp.
andotherunidentifiedhosts,knownfromNewZealand.
Notes:TheZanclosporaconidiophoresareformedonlywhengrownincultureandin
areducedform.ZanclosporaxylophilaissimilartoZ.phaeostalacta[85]inascospores,but
thelatterspeciesdiffersinhaving5–7‐septateandlarger[(28–)30–38(–40)×5–6(–8)μm]
ascospores.
3.4.2.DoubtfulandExcludedSpecies
ThissectionincludesspeciesretainedinZanclosporabasedonmorphologybutnot
verifiedbymolecularDNAdata,aswellasspeciesexcludedortransferredtoothergenera
onthebasisofmolecularevidenceand/ormorphologicaldata.
ZanclosporaaustroamericanaB.Sutton&Hodges,NovaHedwigia26:522.1975.
Habitatandgeographicaldistribution:SaprobeonthebarkofEucalyptuspropinqua,
knownfromBrazil[3].

Microorganisms2021,9,70643of60


Notes:Fordescriptionandillustrations,seeSuttonandHodges[3].Thisspecies
closelyresemblesotherspeciesinthegenuswithtypicalZanclosporaconidiophoresand
falcateconidia.Itcanbedistinguishedinhavingsimpleconidiophoreswithconidioge‐
nouscellsconfinedtotwoseparateregions.
ZanclosporabicolorataR.F.Castañeda,M.Villav.&D.Sosa,Mycotaxon135:896.2020.
Habitatandgeographicaldistribution:Saprobeondecayingleavesofanunidentified
plant,knownfromEcuador[10].
Notes:Fordescriptionandillustrations,seeVillavicencioetal.[10].Zanclosporabicol‐
oratahasconidiogenouscellsdisposedofmoreorlessinthemiddleofthesimple,setiform
conidiophoreswithsuballantoidconidia,similartoZ.bonfinensis.However,theirconidi‐
ophoresdifferincolourandornamentationfromconidiophoresofothermembersofthe
genus.Theconidiophoresarepalebrownorbrownatthebasebecomingdarkreddish‐
browntodarkbrownandalmostopaquetowardtheapex.Theconidiophoresaresmooth‐
walledinZ.bicolorata,whileZ.bonfinensishastheconidiophoressmoothatthebase,be‐
comingverrucoseattheapex[8,10].
ZanclosporabonfinensisD.A.C.Almeida,Gusmão&M.F.O.Marques,Mycosphere4:
685.2013.
Habitatandgeographicaldistribution:Saprobeondecayingleavesofunidentified
dicotyledonousplant,knownfromBrazil[8].
Notes:Fordescriptionandillustrations,seeAlmeidaetal.[8].Forcomparison,see
commentunderZ.bicolorataandTable2.
ZanclosporabrevisporaS.Hughes&W.B.Kendr.,NewZealandJournalofBotany3:156.
1965.
Habitatandgeographicaldistribution:SaprobeonthebarkofNothofagussolandrivar.
cliffortioides,leavesofCocusnuciferaandondeadtwigsandleavesofotherunidentified
substrates.ItisknownfromBrazil,Cuba,NewZealandandSouthAfrica[1,5,8,28].
Notes:Fordescriptionandillustrations,seeHughesandKendrick[1].Twovarieties
weredescribedunderthisspecies,Z.brevisporavar.brevispora[1]andvar.transvaalensis
[5].Theyaredistinguishedmainlybythenumberofconidiogenouscellsandconidial
characters.Zanclosporabrevisporavar.brevisporahasmoreconidiogenouscellsandcurved
somewhatsmallerconidia[1,5].ThisspeciesfitswellintheconceptofZanclospora,how‐
everfurtherstudiesareneededtoresolve,whetheritisoneortwospecies.
ZanclosporaindicaSubram.&Vittal,Can.J.Bot.51:1132.1973.
Habitatandgeographicaldistribution:SaprobeondeadleavesofChamaecrista
desvauxii,Crotonsp.,Gymnosporiaemarginata,Nectandracoriaceaanddeadleavesandstems
ofotherunidentifiedplants.ItisknownfromCuba,Brazil,IndiaandIvoryCoast
[2,8,25,91–93].
Notes:Fordescriptionandillustrations,seeSubramanianandVittal[2].Thisspecies
deviatesfromthegenericconceptofZanclosporainthemorphologyoftheconidiogenous
cellsandthewaytheyareinsertedontheconidiophore.ThephialidesofZ.indicaare
broadlylageniform,extendintoanarrowneckandelongatepercurrentlytoformasec‐
ondaryphialide.Thecollaretteiswell‐defined.Inaddition,someofthesecondaryphi‐
alidesareillustratedinalateralpositionontheprimaryphialidesuggestingasympodial
elongation.Thephialidesdivergefromtheconidiophoreandarearrangedinseveral
whorlsbelowthetransversesepta.OtherZanclosporadiffersfromZ.indicainhavingphi‐
alideswithanindistinctcollarette;theyaretightlyappressedtotheconidiophoreand

Microorganisms2021,9,70644of60


arrangedincompactfertilezones.Basedoncomparativemorphology,Z.indicaisnotac‐
ceptedinthegenus.
ZanclosporamysticaZucconi&Rambelli,MicologiaItaliana11:51.1982.
Habitatandgeographicaldistribution:Saprobeonleaflitter,knownonlyinIvory
Coast[4].
Notes:ZanclosporamysticadiffersfromotherZanclosporainacute,darkbrown,
opaque,sterilebranchesinsertedinthefertilezoneamongthephialides[4].Asimilar
patternwasobservedinKionochaetaramifera[17,87],whichdiffersfromZ.mysticaina
conidiogenousapparatusconsistingofacompactlyarrangedseriesofsubhyaline
branchesbearingconidiogenouscells.InotherZanclosporawithbranchedconidiophores,
lateralbranchesaresimilartothemainstalkandbearadditionalfertilezones(Z.aurea,Z.
falcata,Z.iberica,Z.novae‐zelandiae,Z.lateriphiala)orterminateintoamonophialide(Z.
ramifera).SimilarbranchesdescribedinZ.mysticaalsooccurinZ.stellata(=Stephanopho‐
rellastellata,thisstudy),buttheyaredisposedattheconidiophoreapexabovethefertile
zone.
BrachiampullaRéblová&Hern.‐Restr.,gen.nov.MycoBankMB836364.
Typespecies:Brachiampullaverticillata(B.Sutton&Hodges)Réblová&Hern.‐Restr.
Etymology:Brachium(Latin)arm,branch,ampulla(Latin)bottle,referringtodiver‐
gentlageniformconidiogenouscellswithalongextensionresemblingbranches.
Description:Colonieseffuse,darkbrown,whitish‐brownwhensporulating,hairy.
Myceliummostlysuperficial,hyphaebranched,septate,pigmented.Anamorph:Conidi‐
ophoresmacronematous,mononematous,erect,setiform,unbranched,pigmented.Co‐
nidiogenouscellspolyphialidic,indeterminate,ampulliformtolageniform,elongating
percurrentlyandsympodially,discrete,lateral,arrangedsinglyorinwhorls,orterminal,
integrated.Conidiahyaline,aseptate,aggregatedinslimyheads.Teleomorph:Notob‐
served.
Brachiampullaverticillata(B.Sutton&Hodges)Réblová&Hern.‐Restr.,comb.nov.My‐
coBankMB837809.(Figure19).
Basionym:SelenosporellaverticillataB.Sutton&Hodges,NovaHedwigia29:602.1978
(1977).
Synonym:ZanclosporaureweraeJ.A.Cooper[as“ureweri”],N.Z.J.Bot.43:344.2005.
Descriptiononthenaturalsubstrate:Colonieseffuse,hairy,darkbrown,whitish‐
brownwhensporulating.Anamorph:Conidiophores120−173×4−5.5(–6)μm,erect,single
orinfascicles,cylindricaltosubulate,basebulbose,setiform,straightorgentlybent,un‐
branched,septate,darkbrowntowardsthebase,palertowardstheapex,smooth,apical
cellsubhyalinetolightbrown,oftenfertile.Conidiogenouscellspolyphialidic,11−16×4−6
μm,venter6–8μmlong,theupperpartaboveventersympodiallyextending4.5−9.5×
1.5−2μm,withnumerouslateralopeningswithminutecollarettes,indeterminate,ampul‐
liformtolageniform,discrete,lateral,arrangedsinglyoringroupsof2−5inwhorlsbelow
thetransversesepta,orintegrated,disposedofterminally,lightbrowntowardsthebase,
subhyalinetowardstheapex,smooth,divergingfromtheconidiophore.Conidia6.5−8×
1.5−2μm(mean±SD=7.2±0.4×1.8±0.2μm),lunate,hyaline,taperingatbothends,
acuteapically,withabasalscar,smooth,aggregatedinwhiteslimyheads.Teleomorph:
Notobserved.

Microorganisms2021,9,70645of60



Figure19.Brachiampullaverticillata.(A–C,G–I)Conidiophores.(D,J–M)Detailsofconidiogenouscells.(E,F,N)Conidia.
(O)Apicalpartoftheconidiophore.(P)ColoniesonCMD,MLA,OAandPCAafter4weeks(fromlefttoright).Images:
(A–F,P)onthenaturalsubstrate(ICMP15993);(G–O)onPCAafter8weeks(ICMP15065ex‐paratype).Bars:(A,B)=20
μm;(C–D,G–N)=10μm;(E,F,O)=5μm;(P)=1cm.

Microorganisms2021,9,70646of60


Culturecharacteristics:OnCMDcolonies14–15mmdiam,circular,flat,margin
finelyfimbriate,cobwebbytosparselyfloccosebecomingmucoidtowardsthemargin,
amber‐beige,withalightbeigeouterzoneofsubmergedgrowth,reverselightbrown.On
MLAcolonies24–25mmdiam,circular,convexcentrally,flatmargin,marginfinelyfim‐
briate,lanose,floccose,furrowedatthecentre,zonate,beigewithabeige‐browninterme‐
diatezone,darkbrowntorussetatthemargin,reversedarkbrown.OnOAcolonies23–
25mmdiam,circular,flat,marginsubsurface,lobate,lanose,floccosebecomingmucoid
towardsthemargin,beige‐brownwithablackouterzoneofsubmergedgrowth,reverse
black.OnPCAcolonies15–17mmdiam,circular,slightlyraised,marginentire,lanose,
floccosebecomingcobwebbytolocallymucoidatthemargin,beige,darkbrownatthe
marginwitharussetouterzoneofsubmergedgrowth,reversedarkbrown.Sporulation
wasabundantonCMD,OA(restrictedtotheinoculationblockandthecentreofthecol‐
ony),moderateonPCA,absentonMLA.
DescriptiononPCA:Colonieseffuse,hairy,vegetativehyphaesubhyalinetobrown,
septate,branched,1.5–3μmwide.Anamorph:Conidiophores,conidiogenouscellsand
conidiaasonthenaturalsubstrate.Conidiophores105−168×3.5−4.5μm,apicalcellfertile,
terminatedintoaphialideorawhorlofseveralphialides.Conidiogenouscellspolyphia‐
lidic,13.5−25×4−6μm,venter6–8μmlong,theupperpartaboveventersympodially
extending(6−)7−17.5×1.5−2.5μm,occasionallywith1–2(–3)percurrentelongations,dis‐
crete,lateral,arrangedsinglyoringroupsof2−3(−4)inwhorlsorintegrated,terminal.
Conidia6.5−9.5×1.5−2μm(mean±SD=7.9±1.0×2.0±0.2μm),lunate,hyaline,aseptate.
Teleomorph:Notobserved.
Materialexamined:NEWZEALAND,BayofPlenty,Gisborne,TeUreweraprotected
area,LakeWaikaremoana,Ngamokotrack(‐38.76254867,177.1541956),onadeadleafof
Nothofagusfusca,11May2001,J.A.CooperJAC8191(holotypeofZ.ureweraePDD76621).
NEWZEALAND,BayofPlenty,AongeteteLodge(‐37.67386195,175.9152742),onadead
leafofWeinmanniaracemosa,9May2003,J.A.CooperJAC8609(paratypeofZ.urewerae
PDD76612,ex‐paratypecultureICMP15065).NEWZEALAND,Manawatū‐Whanganui,
EruaForest(‐39.25690416,175.326371),4Apr.2005,onincubateddeadleaffromabog,
J.A.CooperJAC9549(PDD80888,cultureICMP15993).
Habitatandgeographicaldistribution:SaprobeonfallenleavesofEucalyptussp.,
Nothofagusfusca,WeinmanniaracemosaandotherunidentifiedhostsinNewZealandand
theUSA,Hawaii[7,94].
Notes:Althoughthespecieswasdescribedwithconidiogenouscellswithasingle
phialidicopening[7],theexaminationoftheparatype,otherherbariummaterialandliv‐
ingculturesrevealedthattheconidiogenouscellsarepolyphialidic,indeterminate,the
upperpartissympodiallyelongatingandcontainsnumerousopeningswithinminute
collarettes.TheholotypePDD76621ofZ.ureweraedidnotcontainanyherbariummate‐
rial,onlyadriedculture.ApersonalnoteontheholotypeofZ.ureweraebyJ.A.Cooper,
dated2July2010,waspostedonthewebsiteofthePDDherbariumandreadsas:“A
subsequentexaminationofconidiogenouscellsunderSEMsuggeststhisisSelenosporella”.
BasedonadetailedcomparisonoftherevisedmaterialofZ.ureweraeandthedescrip‐
tionandillustrationofSelenosporellaverticillata[94],weconsiderbothspeciesidentical.
Therefore,anewgenusBrachiampullaisproposedforS.verticillataintheXyladictyochae‐
taceae,andZ.ureweraeisreducedtosynonymyundertheformerspecies.Brachiampulla
verticillataresemblesS.acicularis[95]andS.aristata[96]inthemorphologyofconidioge‐
nouscellswithminutephialidicopeningsformedaftersympodialelongation.Onthe
otherhand,highlysimilarSelenosporellaspeciescharacterisedbyampulliform,polyblastic,
sympodiallyelongatingconidiogenouscellsarrangedinwhorlsandunicellular,hyaline
conidiabutwithholoblasticconidiogenesisincludeS.curvispora[97],thetypespeciesof
Selenosporella,andalsoS.nandiensis[98]andS.setosa[99].
StephanophorellaRéblová&Hern.‐Restr.,gen.nov.MycoBankMB836363.

Microorganisms2021,9,70647of60


Typespecies:Stephanophorellastellata(M.Calduch,Gené&Guarro)Réblová&Hern.‐
Restr.
Etymology:Stephanos(Greek)crown,‐phora(Greek)bearing,frompherein(tobear),
referringtoagroupofshortbranchesresemblingacrownattheconidiophoreapex,‐ella,
diminutive,usedasaname‐formingsuffix.
Description:Colonieshairy,blackish.Myceliumismostlyimmersed.Anamorph:Co‐
nidiophoresmacronematous,mononematous,setiform,pigmented,withsetiform,sterile
branchesinsertedintothemainstalkinacrown‐likefashion.Conidiogenouscellsphia‐
lidic,determinate,ampulliformtolageniform,withatubularcollarette,discrete,lateral,
appressedtotheconidiophore,arrangedinwhorlsformingacompactfertilezone.Co‐
nidiahyaline,aseptate,slimy.Teleomorph:Notobserved.(PartiallyadaptedfromCal‐
duchetal.[6].)
Stephanophorellastellata(M.Calduch,Gené&Guarro)Réblová&Hern.‐Restr.,comb.
nov.MycoBankMB837811.(Figure20).
Basionym:ZanclosporastellataM.Calduch,Gené&Guarro,Mycologia94:131.2002.
Culturecharacteristics:OnCMDcolonies14–15mmdiam,circular,raised,margin
fimbriate,cobwebby,floccosebecomingmucoid,deeplyfurrowed,darkbrown,russetto‐
wardstheperiphery,beigeatthemargin,reversedarkbrown.OnMLAcolonies20–21
mmdiam,circular,convex,marginentire,velvetytocobwebby,floccose,mucoidcen‐
trally,deeplyfurrowed,irregularlyfolded,darkbrown,beige‐browntowardsthemargin,
withadarkamber‐brownouterzone,reversebrown‐black.OnOAcolonies20–22mm
diam,circular,raised,marginlobate,mucoid,locallycobwebbytoflaky,withshallowir‐
regularfoldsespeciallyatthemargin,darkgreytoalmostblackwitholivaceousgrey
zones,reversedarkolivaceousgrey.OnPCAcolonies13–16mmdiam,circular,convex,
flattowardstheperiphery,marginsubsurface,fimbriate,cobwebby,floccose,furrowed
centrally,smoothtowardstheperiphery,beige‐brownwithadarkbrowntodarkamber‐
brownouterzoneofsubmergedgrowth,reverseblack.Sporulationwasabundanton
CMA,absentonCMD,MLA,OAandPCA.
DescriptiononCMA:Coloniespulvinate,darkbrowntoblack,whitishduetoconid‐
ialmassesonsporulatingconidiophoresandalsocoveringthesurface,vegetativehyphae
hyaline,subhyalinetobrown,branched,septate,1.5–3μmwide.Anamorph:Stromawell‐
developedatthesurfaceofthecolony,consistingofglobosetopolyhedral,thick‐walled,
subhyalinetoolivaceous‐browncells,ca.10.5–22μmdiam;cellssometimesarrangedin
monilioidstrands.Conidiophores125–158μmlong,4–5.5μmwideabovethebase,6.5–8
μmwideatthefertileregion,erect,setiform,palebrownatthemidsectionandtowards
thebase,darkbrownandopaqueattheapex,septate,cylindricaltocylindrical‐fusiform,
basebulbose2.5–3.5μmwidewithseveralrhizoids,apexsmooth,sterile,acute,withup
tosixdarkbrown,opaque,acute,setiformbranchesarrangedinastellateformationin
oneortwolevelsattheapex.Conidiogenouscellsmonophialidic,6–8.5×3–4μm,tapering
toca.1μmbelowthecollarette,ampulliformtolageniform,tightlyappressedtotheco‐
nidiophore,arrangedingroupsof4–6in10–15whorlsjustbelowsepta;collaretteflared,
narrowlywedge‐shapedtotubular,1.5–2×2–3μm.Conidia3–4.5×(0.5–)1–1.5μm(mean
±SD=3.4±0.3×1.2±0.1μm),clavatetooblong‐clavatetosuballantoid,taperingtowards
thebasalend,roundedattheapicalend,withaconspicuousexcentricinflatedscaratthe
base,straightorinequilateral,hyaline,aseptate,smooth.Teleomorph:Notobserved.
Materialexamined:NIGERIA,CrossRiverState,MammoForest,onunidentified
deadfallenleaves,2Jun.1997,M.Calduch,J.GuarroandA.M.Stchigel(cultureex‐type
CBS101301=FMR6481).

Microorganisms2021,9,70648of60



Figure20.Stephanophorellastellata(CBS101301ex‐type).(A–C)Colonieswithconidiophores,indetail.(D–G)Conidio‐
phores.(H)Branchesarrangedinastellatefashion.(I,J)Conidiogenouscells.(K)Conidia.(L)ColoniesonCMD,MLA,
OAandPCAafter4weeks(fromlefttoright).Images:(A–K)onCMAafter6weeks.Bars:(A)=500μm;(B,C)=200μm;
(D,E)=20μm;(F–H)=10μm;(I–K)=5μm;(L)=1cm.
Habitatandgeographicaldistribution:Thespeciesisasaprobeonplantdebris,
knownsofarfromAfricainNigeria[6].

Microorganisms2021,9,70649of60


Notes:Foradditionaldescriptionandillustrations,seeCalduchetal.[6].Stephanophorella
stellataresemblesZanclosporainsetiformconidiophores,lateral,determinatephialidesar‐
rangedalongthemidsectioninafertilezoneandhyalineconidia,butdiffersinphialideswith
awell‐definedcollaretteandacrownofsetiformbranchesattheconidiophoreapex.
4.Discussion
4.1.Morphology,InterspecificVariabilityandLifeHistoryofZanclospora
Ourphylogeneticanalysisofthecombined18S,28Sandrpb2sequenceshasprovided
strongsupportfortherecognitionofZanclosporaasapolyphyleticgenus,withspecies
distributedamongthreedistantlyrelatedevolutionarylineagesintheSordariomycetes
(Figure1).Thecoreofthegenus,includingZ.novae‐zelandiae,clusteredintheChaeto‐
sphaeriaceae(Chaetosphaeriales),Z.stellataispositionedintheVermiculariopsiellaceae
(Vermiculariopsiellales),andZ.ureweraeisnestedintheXyladictyochaetaceae
(Xylariales).
WithintheChaetosphaeriaceae,Zanclosporaisresolvedasawell‐supportedmono‐
phyleticclade(Figure2).Itisaholomorphicgenusencompassing17speciesandtwova‐
rieties.Cultivationstudies,morphologicalcomparisonsonnaturalsubstratesandphylo‐
geneticanalysisoffourmarkers(ITS,28S,tef1‐αandtub2)of21strainsrepresenting12
speciesrevealedunknownpleomorphisminZanclospora.Ourbarcodinggapanalysis
showedthatthebarcodeswidelyusedinAscomycota(i.e.ITS,tef1‐αandtub2)areappli‐
cableforspeciesdelimitationinZanclospora.
Threedifferentconidiophoremorphotypeshithertoconsideredunrelated,occurin
thelifecycleofseveralmembersofthegenus.Theyincludetheanamorphwiththetypical
Zanclosporaconidiophoresandphaeostalagmus‐andstanjehughesia‐likesynanamorphs.
Basedonnovelmolecularandphenotypicdata,thegenericconceptofZanclosporais
emendedtoincludeteleomorphicandanamorphiccharacters.TenZanclosporaspecies
haveknownteleomorph‐anamorphconnections,whichwereeitherexperimentallyestab‐
lished([12],thisstudy)orestimated,basedonthejuxtapositionofbothmorphs[11].
ThediagnosticcharactersofZanclosporaincludeerect,pigmented,setiformconidio‐
phoresthatbearonetoseveralwhorlsofpalebrown,sessilemonophialidesarisingjust
belowthesepta.Thephialidesareappressedtotheconidiophore;theyformacompact
fertilezoneandproducehyaline,aseptateconidiawithoutsetulae.Macroconidiaform
onlyonnaturalconditionsandvaryinshapefromfalcate,horseshoe‐shaped,obovoidto
bacilliform,whereasmicroconidiaformonlyincultureandareclavatetooblong‐clavate,
ellipsoidaltofusiform.However,theZanclosporaanamorphsgrowingonagarornatural
substrate/Urticastemsinculture,providingsemi‐naturalconditions,differinsize,overall
complexityandappearanceofconidiophoresandalsoinconidialmorphology.Thesynan‐
amorphsimilartoPhaeostalagmus[19]occasionallyoccurswhenthespeciesisgrownin
culture.ItshareswithZanclosporathearrangementoflateralphialidesinwhorlsonthe
conidiophore,ortheycanbedisposedofinaverticillatefashiononshortbranches.Toa
certainextent,itmayrepresentasimplifiedZanclosporaunderinvitroconditions.Asim‐
ilaranalogycanbefoundbetweenZanclosporaandthestanjehughesia‐likesynanamorph.
Thelatterformsdarkbrown,multiseptateconidiophores,whicharewiderandseveral
timeslongerthanthoseofZanclospora,butremainsterile,rarelywithoneortwolateral
phialides(Figure14A).Althoughconidiophoresofthissynanamorpharestrikinglyrem‐
iniscentofconidiaofStanjehughesia(conidiophoresareabsent,reducedtoconidiogenous
cells),adematiaceoushyphomycetesegregatedfromSporidesmium[18],theyrepresenta
differentstructurewithadifferentfunction.Thestanjehughesia‐likesynanamorphhas
beenfrequentlyobservedonnaturalsubstratesaswellasinculture.Phaeostalagmusand
StanjehughesiaformseparatelineagesintheChaetosphaeriaceaetree(Figure2).
DeHoog[100]addressedplasticityandvariationinconidiogenesisofyeast‐likefungi
anddistinguishedsynanamorphsintotwobasiccategories,i.e.pleoanamorphydepend‐

Microorganisms2021,9,70650of60


entonenvironmentalconditionsandspontaneouspleoanamorphythatexistsunderiden‐
ticalenvironmentalconditions.Thephaeostalagmus‐likesynanamorphwasobserved
onlywhengrowninculture.Weassumethatitmayrepresentthegroupofsynanamorphs
thatareinfluencedbyenvironmentalconditions.
TheidentificationofZanclosporabecamechallengingbecauseofthehighdegreeof
variabilityintheanamorphicmorphologyandtheirirregularpresenceonthenaturalsub‐
strateandinculture.ThisisespeciallytrueincaseswhentheZanclosporaconidiophores
areabsentonmaterialfromnatureandformonlyinculture,andthestanjehughesia‐like
synanamorphistheonlyanamorphicphenotypepresent,i.e.Z.clavulata,Z.iberica,Z.ram‐
ifera,Z.xylophila.Inaddition,somestrainsderivedfromascosporeslackbothZanclospora
andstanjehughesia‐likeconidiophores,andonlythephaeostalagmus‐likesynanamorph
isformedinculture,namelyZ.phaeostalacta,Z.sylvaticaandZ.tropicalis.Althoughthe
anamorphofZ.jonesiiisunknown,brown,sinuous,cylindrical‘setae’arisingfromthe
baseofascomataandintheirvicinityweredescribedandillustratedbyPereraetal.([86],
Figure5g)intheprotologue.Thesepresumedsetaematchthestanjehughesia‐likesynan‐
amorphobservedinotherZanclosporaspecies.
Althoughthestanjehughesia‐likeconidiophoresonlymimicconidiaofSporidesmium
anditssegregates,wecancomparebothgroupsintermsoftheformationofphialideson
thesemorphologicallysimilarstructuresorintheirlifecycle.Phialidicsynanamorphsare
rareinSporidesmiumandsimilartaxa.Stanjehughesiahormiscioides(teleomorphUmbrino‐
sphaeria,Chaetosphaeriaceae)formachloridium‐likesynanamorphwhengrownincul‐
ture[101].Kirk[102]describedaphialidicsynanamorphaccompanyingSporidesmium
clarkii;discretephialidesproducingfiliform,bentmicroconidiaareborndirectlyonco‐
nidiaorseparateconidiophores,solitarilyoroncompactbranches.
Inthephylogenetictreeinferredfromthefourcombinedloci(Figure3),Z.novae‐
zelandiaeandthreeothermorphologicallysimilarspecies,i.e.Z.clavulata,Z.falcataandZ.
iberica,wereresolvedascloselyrelatedbutseparatespecieslineages.ExceptforZ.clavu‐
lata,whichformsonlymicroconidia,theyareremarkablysimilarinmacroconidia,conid‐
iogenouscellandconidiophoremorphology.Ornamentationofthesetiform,apicalpart
oftheconidiophoresofZ.novae‐zelandiae[1],originallyuniquetothisspecies,isnewly
describedinZ.falcata.Moreover,theexcrescencesontheconidiophoresurfacedonotde‐
velopinculture.MoleculardatasuggestthatZ.novae‐zelandiaeisaspeciescomplex.The
four‐genephylogenyandmorphologicalcomparisonofspecimenstentativelyidentified
asZ.novae‐zealandiaewiththeholotypeofthisspeciesfacilitatedtheircorrectidentifica‐
tionandallowedinterpretationofthetypematerial.Asaresult,anewspecies,Z.falcata,
wasdesignatedandseparatedfromZ.novae‐zelandiaebyprimarilyanamorphicfeatures
andZ.novae‐zelandiaewasepitypified.Giventheknownbroadgeographicaldistribution
andthedescribedvariabilityinconidialsizeandconidiophorecharactersofZ.novae‐
zelandiae,thismolecularstudyisthefirsttosuggestthatitisanunexploredcomplexthat
maycontainothercrypticspecies.
4.2.GlobalBiogeographyofZanclospora
Zanclosporawasidentifiedasalow‐diversegenuscomprising12verifiedspeciesand
arelativelylownumberofphylotypesinferredfromtheenvironmentalDNA(Figures3,
5and6).WecouldnotlinkmostofthephylotypesbetweenITS1(6)andITS2(14)datasets,
exceptforthree,whichcontainthewholeITS,butweassumethatduetotheirgeography
andecology(Figure7)theyoverlaporsomerepresentknownbutsofarnotsequenced
species.Inourstudy,theminimalnumberoftaxafromenvironmentalDNAdata,roughly
correspondingtothelevelofspecies,was14(Figure6).DatafromNCBIGenBankand
UNITEdatabasescontributedtothisdiversitystudybyonlyonesequence(DQ124120)
belongingtothephylotypeITS1‐ENV5(Figure5).TheseresultsconfirmGlobalFungi,the
mostcomprehensiveatlasofglobalfungaldistribution,asapowerfultoolfordiversity
studies.

Microorganisms2021,9,70651of60


ShortreadsattributabletoZanclosporawereextremelyrare.Theoretically,itcouldbe
duetothePCRamplificationbias,resultinginanunderestimationofstudiedfungi.In
general,Zanclosporacanbeamplifiedandsequencedunderstandardconditionswithcom‐
monlyusedITSprimers.Onthecontrary,dataminingofsequence‐onlymembersofthe
ChaetosphaeriaceaeresultedintensofthousandsofhitssoPCRbiasappearsunlikelyas
anexplanationforthelackofZanclosporasequencesinthesedatasets(TablesS2andS3).
We,therefore,expectthatourfindingsreflectrealityratherthanbeingduetolimitations
ofPCRandmassivelyparallelsequencing.
WecanfurtherconfirmthatZanclosporainhabitsaspectrumofsubstratesincluding
decayingbark,woodandfallenleaves,butalsolivingrootsandmoreoftensoil,which
wasnotyetknown.Ourdataminingconfirmsfullythepatternofdistributionknown
fromclassicalstudiesandexpandsitsdistributionandecology.Knowncentresofgeo‐
graphicaldistribution(NewZealand,CentralAmericaandCaribbean,SouthAmerica)
wereconfirmedfrommetabarcodingdataandalsohaveshownthatSoutheastAsiarep‐
resentsanotherhotspotofZanclosporadiversity.Inconclusion,basedonacceptedspecies,
mostofwhichareknownfromthetypecollectiononly,anddatafromtheGlobalFungi
database,wehavedemonstratedthatZanclosporaisaveryraregenusofworldwidedis‐
tribution,livinginhumidnaturalforests(mostlytemperaterainforestandtropicalrain‐
forestzones)insoilandondecayingplantmatter.Ourstudyisthefirstapplicationofthe
GlobalFungidatabasefordiversity,biogeographyandecologysurveyofagroupoffungi.
ThepresentphylogeniesofmetabarcodingbasedonITS1orITS2forthemajorityof
sequencesdemonstratetheimportanceofenvironmentalDNAsequencesinphylogeny‐
basedtaxonomicstudies.Therehasbeenmuchdiscussioninthemycologicalcommunity
onusingmetagenomicDNAfromenvironmentalsamplesasholotypesandingeneralfor
taxonnaming[103–110].Inaddition,thefirststudiesonnamingDNA‐basedtaxahave
alreadybeenpublished,e.g.DeBeeretal.[111],LückingandMoncada[112],Kalsoom
Khanetal.[113].TheITS1andITS2phylotypesattributedtoZanclosporarepresenteither
newlineagesoralreadydescribedspeciesthathavenotyetbeensequenced.Theyexpand
theknowngeographicaldistributionandecologyandhelptoestimatethenumberofex‐
istingspecies;thenumberofrecoveredphylotypesalmostdoublesthenumberofknown
Zanclosporaspecies.Usingmetabarcodingdata,wegatheredmostinformationonthedis‐
tribution,ecologyandphylogenyofZanclosporaexceptmorphology.However,Zanclo‐
sporaincludesthreeanamorphicphenotypes,whichrepresentmostofthemorphological
variabilityofthegenus.We,therefore,prefertodefinetheenvironmentalsequencesof
the‘dark’Zanclosporataxaasphylotypes.Wehopethatfuturesamplingandincreased
effortstocultivatethesefascinatingfungiwillrevealnewconnectionsbetweencultivable
fungiandtheircounterpartsidentifiedfromenvironmentalDNA.
4.3.ZanclosporaandItsAllies
ZanclosporacanbecomparedtoCryptophiale[15],Cryptophialoidea[16]andKionochaeta
[17],allmembersoftheChaetosphaeriaceae,whichformseparatelineages(Figure2).
Theysharepigmented,mononematous,setiformconidiophoreswithphialidesarranged
infertilezonesandhyalineconidia.Themaindistinguishingcharactersarethearrange‐
mentofphialidesontheconidiophore,branchingpatternoftheconidiogenousapparatus
andpresenceorabsenceofashield‐shapedplate.InCryptophiale,CryptophialoideaandZan‐
closporathephialidesarediscrete,sessile,whileinKionochaetatheyareintegrated,dis‐
posedattheapexofconidiophoresorbranches.Zanclosporaistheonlyofthesefourgenera
withphialidesarrangedverticallyalongthemainaxisoftheconidiophoreinwhorlsand
aroundtheentireconidiophoreperimeter.Thephialideshaveapoorlydefinedcollarette
andarenotobscuredbyashieldoranysterilestructure.Cryptophiale,ontheotherhand,
encompassesfungiwiththefertileregioncomposedofsessilephialideswithindistinct
collarettesthatariseatarightangletotheconidiophoreaxis,arrangedinoneortwopal‐
isaderows,andcoveredandpartlyenclosedbyashield‐shapedplateofsterile,fusedcells.
Theconidiophoresareapicallysterile,branchedorunbranched,orwithlateralbranches.

Microorganisms2021,9,70652of60


Cryptophialespecieswithphialideswithawell‐definedcollarettearrangedononlyone
sideoftheconidiophoreandlackingtheprotectingshieldweresegregatedintoCrypto‐
phialoidea(Cr.)byKuthubutheenandNawawi[16].Moleculardata,whichareavailable
onlyfornon‐typestrainsofCr.fasciculata[114]andtwoCryptophiale[75],suggestaclose
relationshipofbothgenera.ThefundamentalcharacterofKionochaetaisthebranching
patternoftheconidiogenousapparatus.Itcomprisescompactorlooselyarranged
branchesbearingconidiogenouscells,irregularlybranchedorinapenicillatefashion.The
conidiophoresareunbranchedorwithlateralbranchesinsertedinorabovethefertilere‐
gion.
IntheITS‐28SphylogenyoftheChaetosphaeriaceae(Figure2),theclosestrelatives
toZanclosporawereChaetosphaeriaminuta[12]andacladecontainingCryptophiale,Crypto‐
phialoidea,KionochaetaivorensisandConicomyces.Inthearrangementandmorphologyof
phialides,theanamorphofCh.minutaresemblesCryptophialoidea[16].Themajorityofspe‐
ciesofCryptophialoideaaremonophialidic,e.g.Cr.ramosa,Cr.secunda,thetypespecies,or
Cr.uncispora[16,114,115],mono‐ orrarelypolyphialidicinCr.fasciculata[24,114],or
polyphialidicinCr.manifesta[87].Moreover,someCryptophialoideahavephialidesar‐
rangedindiscreteunilateralbundles(Cr.fasciculata,Cr.manifesta,Cr.ramosa),whilein
otherspeciesthephialidesareevenlydistributedalongtheconidiophore.Theconidia
varyinshapeandseptation;theyare0–1‐septate,fusiform,falcateorapicallyhooked.The
lackofmoleculardatadoesnotallowassessingthetaxonomicvalueofthesefeaturesin
Cryptophialoidea.TheseparatepositionofCr.fasciculataandCh.minutawiththecrypto‐
phialoidea‐likeanamorphsuggestsfurthervariabilityofthissmallgenus,whichcurrently
includesfivespecies[116].Theex‐typestrainofK.ivorensis[17,117]isshownasasisterto
CryptophialeandCryptophialoidea,whileK.ramifera[87],thetypespeciesofthegenus,and
twootherKionochaetaformaseparate,monophyleticlineage(Figure2).Thegroupingof
K.ivorensissuggestsevenwiderphenotypicplasticityoftheCryptophialecladethanhas
beendescribed.Conicomyces[118],ontheotherhand,ismorphologicallywelldistinguish‐
ablefromZanclospora.Thegenuswasintroducedforsynnematous,pigmentedhyphomy‐
ceteswithintegratedphialidesandseptate,setulateconidia.
Inthephylogeneticanalysisofthecombined18S,28Sandrpb2sequences(Figure1),
theex‐typestrainofZ.stellataclusteredintheVermiculariopsiellalesonasinglebranch
basaltoacladecomprisingTubulicolla[42]andVermiculariopsiella[9].Therefore,Z.stellata
isexcludedfromZanclosporaintoanewgenus,Stephanophorella.MembersoftheVermic‐
ulariopsiellalesaresaprobic,dematiaceoushyphomycetesthatformeffusecoloniesor
sporodochia.StephanophorellaresemblesZanclosporainsetiformconidiophoresandthear‐
rangementofsessile,lateralphialides,butdiffersmainlyinwell‐definedcollarettesand
thedark,opaque,setiformpartoftheconidiophorewithbranchesinsertedinastellate
fashionattheapex.
4.4.SelenosporellaandMorphologicallySimilarTaxa
Duetothenewlydiscoveredmorphologicalcharactersofconidiogenouscells,Z.
ureweraewasfoundtobeconspecificwithSelenosporellaverticillata[94]andexcludedfrom
Zanclospora.AnewgenusBrachiampullaisproposedforZ.ureweraeanditssystematic
placementisresolvedwiththefourcombinedlociintheXyladictyochaetaceae
(Xylariales).Brachiampulla,basedonB.verticillata,includessaprobesonfallenleaves,
whicharemorphologicallyreminiscentofSelenosporella.
ThegenericconceptofSelenosporella[97,119],typifiedbyS.curvispora,ismorpholog‐
icallyheterogeneousandthegenusispolyphyleticbasedonknownmorphotypes,avail‐
ablemoleculardataandknownlinksofSelenosporellaspp.andselenosporella‐likefungi
invarioustaxonomicgroups,e.g.[20,61,67,120–127].Selenosporellacurvisporawasde‐
scribedfromdeadleavesofJuncuseffususfromIreland[119]andvalidatedbyMacGarvie
[97].Anon‐typestrainofS.curvisporaCBS102623(Figure21),collectedonfallenleaves
ofanunidentifiedhostinSpainwasexamined[onCMA:conidiophores195–600μm,dark
brown,verticillateabove;conidiogenouscellspolyblastic,11–21.5×3–4.5μm(venter7–

Microorganisms2021,9,70653of60


10.5μmlong,theupperpartaboveventerwithminutedenticles,sympodiallyextending
4–11.5×2–2.5μm,elongatingevenmoreuponageingupto24.5μm),venterlightbrown,
rachishyalinebecominglightolivaceousbrown;conidia9.5–11.5×1,lunate,taperingap‐
ically,truncateatthebasewithascar].TheplacementofS.curvisporawasconfirmedin
theHelminthosphaeriaceae(Figure1).Interestingly,theSelenosporellaphenotypeiswide‐
spreadinthisfamily.TheHelminthosphaeriaceaeaccommodateseveralgenerawithdif‐
ferentmodesofconidiogenesissuchastretic(Diplococcium),holoblastic(Endophragmiella)
andholoblastic‐denticulate(Selenosporellaandselenosporella‐like).Membersofthefamily
includeHelminthosphaeriawiththeDiplococciumanamorphandseveralDiplococciumare
knowntoformaselenosporella‐likesynanamorph[127,128].Otherspeciesexperimen‐
tallylinkedwiththeselenosporella‐likesynanamorphsbelongtothefamily,forexample,
Endophragmielladimorphospora[20,129],Echinosphaeriacanescens,Hilberinapunctata
[121,122]andRuzeniaspermoides[61,130].

Figure21.Selenosporellacurvispora(CBS102623).(A,B,E)Conidiophores.(C,D)Conidiogenouscell,indetail.(E)Conidia.
Images:(A–E)onCMAafter8weeks.Bars:(AB)=20μm;(C,E,F)=10μm;(D)=5μm.
MacGarvie[97]describedtheconidiogenouscellsofS.curvisporaaspolyphialidic,
whichwasconfirmedbyEllis[131],SuttonandHodges[94–96].Inaddition,Ellis[131]
describedtheconidiogenouscellswithminuteprotrudingcollarettesandcoinedtheterm
‘denticularcollarette’.Theseobservationswere,however,incontrastwithMatsushima
[18],whointerpretedtheconidiogenouscellsasdenticulate.OnofriandCastagnola[132]
studiedS.curvispora(collectiononadeadleaffromtheprimaryrainforest,IvoryCoast)

Microorganisms2021,9,70654of60


withelectronmicroscopyandreportedtheconidiogenesisholoblastic‐denticulateonsym‐
podiallyelongatingconidiogenouscells.Itisdifficulttoobservethesedelicatestructures
onconidiogenouscellswithlightmicroscopy.
AlthoughSuttonandHodges[94]describedtheconidiogenouscellsofB.verticillata
aspolyphialidic,theyaddedthat:“conidiogenesiscouldwellbeholoblasticratherthan
enteroblastic”.
WeagreewithSuttonandHodges[94]tointerpretthestructuressurroundingthe
conidiogenouslociofB.verticillataasminutecollarettesonpolyphialidicconidiogenous
cells.AsimilarmodeofconidiogenesiswasdescribedinXyladictyochaeta,asistergenusof
BrachiampullaintheXyladictyochaetaceae[9].ItislikelythatSelenosporellaandseleno‐
sporella‐likefungiaccommodatedinseveralphylogeneticallydifferentgroupsvaryinthe
modeofconidiogenesis.Inaddition,SelenosporellaandBrachiampullasharesimilarmor‐
phologyoftheconidiogenouscellsthatareampulliformtolageniform,undetermined
withsympodiallyextendingapex,arrangedinwhorlsalongtheconidiophoreandconidia
thatarehyaline,unicellular,lunateorfalcate.
WithintheXylariales,BrachiampullaiscomparabletoSelenodriella[133,134]inpig‐
mentedmacronematousconidiophores,ampulliform,lateral,polyblasticconidiogenous
cellsarrangedinwhorlsorterminally,andunicellular,hyalineconidia,butSelenodriella
differsinholoblastic‐denticulateconidiogenesis.Ceratocladium[135],representedbyC.
polysetosum[136]inourphylogeny,shareswithBrachiampullapolyblastic,discrete,lateral,
ampulliformconidiogenouscellsandunicellular,hyalineconidia,butdiffersinthepres‐
enceofsetaeandconidiogenouscellsgrowingonclimbingfertilehyphae.Thespecieswas
resolvedasaseparatelineagewithoutaffinitytoanyknownfamilies.Itsrelationshipto
morphologicallysimilarCircinotrichumwasinvestigatedbyHernández‐Restrepoetal.[9].
AsimilararrangementofsympodialconidiogenouscellsfoundinBrachiampullaoccurs,
forexample,inUmbellidion[137].InUmbellidion(generaincertaesedis),theconidiogenous
cellsarecylindricaltolageniformandformonlytheapicalwhorl,occasionallythepig‐
mentedconidiophoreproliferatesandasecondwhorlisdeveloped.
5.Conclusions
Zanclosporaispleomorphicgenusrarelyencounteredondecayingbark,woodorleaf
litter.Severalspeciesaddedtothegenushavebroadeneditsboundaries,butthegeneric
concepthasneverbeenevaluatedwithmolecularDNAdata.OurknowledgeofZanclo‐
sporabiogeographyisminimal;thefieldrecordsareunverifiedwithmoleculardata,and
onlyoneorahandfulofcollectionshavebeenrecordedforeachspecies.Usingsixgenetic
markers,Zanclosporawasshowntobepolyphyletic,withthreedistantlyrelatedlineages
intheSordariomycetes.Zanclosporas.str.wasresolvedasastronglysupportedmonophy‐
leticcladeintheChaetosphaeriaceae.Basedontheresultsofphylogeneticanalysesand
phenotypicdata,twonewsegregategenera,BrachiampullaandStephanophorella,werepro‐
posedforZ.ureweraeandZ.stellata,respectively.Theyrepresenttwodistantlyrelated
lineagesintheXylarialesandVermiculariopsiellales.
ZanclosporaproducesteleomorphspreviouslyclassifiedinthegenusChaetosphaeria.
However,morefrequentlyZanclosporaproducesanamorphscharacterisedbyerect,pig‐
mented,setiform,oftenbranchedconidiophores,sessilemonophialideswithindistinct
collarettesarrangedinwhorlsandtightlyappressedtotheconidiophoresorbranches,
andhyaline,aseptatemacroconidia(onthenaturalsubstrate;falcatetohorseshoe‐shaped
toobovoid)andmicroconidia(inculture;usuallyclavatetoellipsoidal)withoutsetulae.
Seventeenspeciesareaccepted,12ofwhichhavebeenverifiedwithDNAsequencedata.
Wehavediscoveredvariabilityinanamorphiccharacteristicsassociatedwiththreeana‐
morphicstages,ofwhichphaeostalagmus‐andstanjehughesia‐likearenewlydescribed.
PhylogeneticanalysesofenvironmentalITS1andITS2sequencesretrievedfromtheGlob‐
alFungidatabaseprovidedinsightintotheglobalbiogeographyofZanclospora.Sevenand
15phylotypeshavebeenidentifiedinsamplesderivedfromsoil,deadwoodandroots.
ThefieldrecordsverifiedbyDNAdataindicatedtwomaindiversitycoresinAustralasia

Microorganisms2021,9,70655of60


andCaribbean/CentralAmerica.EnvironmentalITSdatasuggestedSoutheastAsiaasa
thirdhotspotofZanclosporadiversity.Interestingly,environmentalsequencesofthese
fungiwerecompletelymissinginEuropeandNorthAmerica,whicharethebest‐sampled
continentsintheGlobalFungidatabase.
Ourstudydemonstratedtheimportanceofinvitrostudiestoassessanamorphic
plasticityandsystematicsofZanclosporaandtheuseofenvironmentalsequencestoex‐
pandourknowledgeonbiogeographyandunknowninterspecificdiversity.Ithasalso
confirmedthatdifferentphenotypesdistinguishedwithinZanclosporaarephylogenet‐
icallydistinct.Wehopethatfuturesamplingandincreasedeffortstocultivatethesefasci‐
natingfungiwillrevealnewconnectionsbetweencultivablefungiandtheircounterparts
identifiedfromenvironmentalDNA.Althoughweaddressedissuesrelatedtoevaluating
taxonomicdiagnosticcriteriaatthegenericlevel,wewereunabletoobtainallspeciesto
assesstheirphylogeneticrelationships.TheyareretainedinZanclosporabasedonmor‐
phology.
SupplementaryMaterials:Thefollowingareavailableonlineatwww.mdpi.com/2076‐
2607/9/4/706/s1,TableS1:TaxaoftheSordariomycetes,theircollectionnumbersandaccessionnum‐
bersforsequencesretrievedfromGenBank,TableS2:Alistofenvironmentalsamplesattributable
toZanclosporawithreferencestoallstudiesintheGlobalFungidatabase,TableS3:Taxarelatedto
ZanclosporaandcomparisonoftheirBLASTsearchintheGlobalFungidatabase,TableS4:Estimates
ofevolutionarydivergencebetweenITSrDNA,28SrDNA,tub2andtef1‐αsequences,TableS5:The
biogeography,substrateandhabitataffinityofZanclosporaandoutgrouptaxainferredfromthe
GlobalFungidatabase,TableS6:PublishedrecordsofZanclosporawithhost,substrate,countryof
thecollectionandreferences.
AuthorContributions:Conceptualization:M.K.,M.H.‐R.andM.R.;Methodology:J.N.,M.K.,
M.H.‐R.andM.R.;Formalanalysis:M.K.andM.R.;Investigation:A.N.M.,J.N.,M.K.,M.H.‐R.and
M.R.;Resources:A.N.M.,M.H.‐R.andM.R.;Visualization:M.R.;Writing—originaldraft:M.K.,
M.H.‐R.andM.R.;Writing—reviewandediting:A.N.M.,J.N.,M.K.,M.H.‐R.andM.R.;Funding
acquisition:M.R.Allauthorshavereadandagreedtothepublishedversionofthemanuscript.
Funding:ThisstudywassupportedbytheprojectoftheCzechScienceFoundation(GAČR20‐
14840S),andaslong‐termresearchdevelopmentprojectsoftheCzechAcademyofSciences,Insti‐
tuteofBotany(RVO67985939)(M.R.),BIOCEV(CZ.1.05/1.1.00/02.0109)(M.K.)andtheUniversity
HospitalHradecKrálovéMHCZ—DRO(UHHK,00179906)(J.N.).Thisstudywasalsosupported
byaNationalScienceFoundationaward(DEB‐0515558)toA.N.M.TheWMKeckCenteratthe
UniversityofIllinoisUrbana‐Champaignisthankedforsequencingservices.Thefieldworkof
M.R.inNewZealandwaspartlysupportedbyStudienstiftungfürmykologischeSystematikund
Ökologie(2003)andManaakiWhenuaFellowship,LandcareResearchAuckland(2005).
InstitutionalReviewBoardStatement:Notapplicable.
InformedConsentStatement:Notapplicable.
DataAvailabilityStatement:AllsequencesgeneratedinthisstudyweresubmittedtoGenBank
(ITS:MW144418–MW144437;28S:MW144402–MW144417;18S:MW151684–MW151690;tef1‐α:
MW147322–MW147335;rpb2:MW147336–MW147342;tub2:MW147343–MW147355).
Acknowledgments:PeterJohnstonisthankedforhisassistancetoM.R.inrevisingtheholotypeof
Z.novae‐zelandiaeandobtainingtheManaakiWhenuaFellowshipandcollectingpermitsforNew
Zealand.WethankSabineHuhndorffortheuseofhercollectionsandDNAextracts.Cony
Decock,JosepaGené,TrixMerkx,MeganPeterson,AdrienneStantonandBevanWeirare
acknowledgedforassistancewithobtaininglivingculturesandherbariumloansanddepositing
newherbariummaterialandstrains.WethankKonstanzeBenschandShaunPennycookfor
grammaticalreviewofnewnamesandreviewersfortheircommentsandsuggestions.
ConflictsofInterest:Theauthorsdeclarenoconflictofinterest.


Microorganisms2021,9,70656of60


References
1. Hughes,S.J.;Kendrick,W.B.NewZealandfungi4.Zanclosporagen.nov.N.Z.J.Bot.1965,3,151−158.
2. Subramanian.C.V.;Vittal.B.P.R.Threenewhyphomycetesfromlitter.Can.J.Bot.1973,51,1127–1132.
3. Sutton,B.C.;Hodges,C.S.,Jr.Eucalyptusmicrofungi:CodinaeaandZanclosporaspeciesfromBrazil.NovaHedwigia1975,26,517–
525.
4. Zucconi,L.;Rambelli,A.UnanovaspeciediZanclosporadallalettieradelPardoNazionaledelTai.Micol.Ital.1982,11,51–52.
5. Morgan‐Jones,G.;Sinclair,R.C.;Eicker,A.DematiaceoushyphomycetesfromSouthAfrica:II.Somephialidicspecies,including
Chalaratranskeiensis,newspecies,andZanclosporabrevisporavar.transvaalensis,newvariety,twonewtaxa.S.Afr.J.Bot.1992,
58,147–154.
6. Calduch,M.;Gené,J.;Guarro,J.;Mercado‐Sierra,A.;Castañeda‐Ruíz,R.F.HyphomycetesfromNigerianrainforests.Mycologia
2002,94,127–135.
7. Cooper,J.A.NewZealandhyphomycetefungi:Additionalrecords,newspecies,andnotesoninterestingcollections.N.Zealand
J.Bot.2005,43,323–349,doi:10.1080/0028825x.2005.9512957.
8. Almeida,D.A.C.;Cruz,A.C.R.;Marques,M.F.O.;Gusmão,L.F.P.Conidialfungifromthesemi‐aridCaatingabiomeofBrazil.
NewandinterestingZanclosporaspecies.Mycosphere2013,4,684–692.
9. Hernández‐Restrepo,M.;Gené,J.;Castañeda‐Ruiz,R.;Mena‐Portales,J.;Crous,P.;Guarro,J.Phylogenyofsaprobicmicrofungi
fromSouthernEurope.Stud.Mycol.2017,86,53–97,doi:10.1016/j.simyco.2017.05.002.
10. Villavicencio,M.;Sosa,D.;Vera,M.;Espinoza,F.;Quevedo,A.;Magdama,F.;Serrano,L.;Pérez‐Martínez,S.;Castañeda‐Ruíz,
R.F.Zanclosporabicoloratasp.nov.fromEcuador.Mycotaxon2020,135,895–900.
11. Hughes,S.J.;Kendrick,W.B.NewZealandfungi12.Menispora,Codinaea,Menisporopsis.N.Z.J.Bot.1968,6,323−375.
12. Fernández,F.A.;Huhndorf,S.M.NewspeciesofChaetosphaeria,MelanopsammellaandTainosphaeriagen.nov.fromtheAmericas.
FungalDivers.2005,18,15–57.
13. Fernández,F.A.;Miller,A.N.;Huhndorf,S.M.;Lutzoni,F.M.;Zoller,S.SystematicsofthegenusChaetosphaeriaanditsallied
genera:Morphologicalandphylogeneticdiversityinnorthtemperateandneotropicaltaxa.Mycologia2006,98,121–130,
doi:10.3852/mycologia.98.1.121.
14. Pirozynski,K.A.Cryptophiale,anewgenusofHyphomycetes.Can.J.Bot.1968,46,1123–1127,doi:10.1139/b68‐148.
15. Goh,T.‐K.;Hyde,K.D.Cryptophialemultiseptata,sp.nov.fromsubmergedwoodinAustralia,andkeystothegenus.Mycol.Res.
1996,100,999–1004,doi:10.1016/s0953‐7562(96)80054‐2.
16. Kuthubutheen,A.;Nawawi,A.Cryptophialoideagen.nov.ondecayingleavesfromMalaysia.Trans.Br.Mycol.Soc.1987,89,581–
583,doi:10.1016/s0007‐1536(87)80095‐5.
17. Kirk,P.;Sutton,B.AreassessmentoftheanamorphgenusChaetopsina(Hyphomycetes).Trans.Br.Mycol.Soc.1985,85,709–717,
doi:10.1016/s0007‐1536(85)80267‐9.
18. Subramanian,C.V.AreassessmentofSporidesmium(hyphomycetes)andsomerelatedtaxa.Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.India1992,58,
179–190.
19. Gams,W.;Holubová‐Jechová,V.Chloridiumandsomeotherdematiaceoushyphomycetesgrowingondecay‐ingwood.Stud.
Mycol.1976,13,1–99.
20. Matsushima,T.IconesMicrofungorumaMatsushimaLectorum;TheNipponPrinting&PublishingMycol.:Osaka,Japan,1976;p.
955.
21. Schoknecht,J.D.;Crane,J.L.AdditionalHyphomycetesfromfreshwaterswampsandhammocks.Can.J.Bot.1983,61,2243–
2247,doi:10.1139/b83‐243.
22. Chang,H.‐S.SetiformconidiophorehyphomycetesfromTaiwan.Bot.Bull.Acad.Sinica1990,31,257–262.
23. Mel’Nik,V.A.;Braun,U.;Alexandrova,A.V.Kiliophoranovozhiloviisp.nov.andfirstrecordofZanclosporacf.novae‐zelandiae
(asexualascomycetes)fromVietnam.Mycobiota2016,6,47–54,doi:10.12664/mycobiota.2016.06.05.
24. Kirk,P.M.NeworinterestingmicrofungiXIV.DematiaceoushyphomycetesfromMtKenya.Mycotaxon1985,23,305−352.
25. Mercado‐Sierra,A.;Holubová‐Jechová,V.;Mena‐Portales,J.HifomicetosDematiáceosdeCuba,Enteroblásticos.MonografieXXIII;
MuseoRegionalediScienzeNaturali:Torino,Italy,1997.
26. Tsui,C.;Hyde,K.;Hodgkiss,I.BiodiversityoffungionsubmergedwoodinHongKongstreams.Aquat.Microb.Ecol.2000,21,
289–298,doi:10.3354/ame021289.
27. Izabel,T.D.S.S.;Santos,D.S.;DeAlmeida,D.A.C.;Gusmão,L.F.P.FungosconidiaisdobiomaCaatingaII.Novosregistrospara
ocontinenteamericano,Neotrópico,AméricadoSuleBrasil.Rodriguésia2011,62,229–240,doi:10.1590/2175‐7860201162201.
28. Whitton,S.R.;McKenzie,E.H.C.;Hyde,K.D.AnamorphicfungiassociatedwithPandanaceae.InFungiAssociatedwith
Pandanaceae;Hyde,K.D,Ed.;Springer:Dordrecht,TheNetherlands,2012;pp.125‐353.
29. Sayers,E.W.;Cavanaugh,M.;Clark,K.;Ostell,J.;Pruitt,K.D.;Karsch‐Mizrachi,I.GenBank.NucleicAcidsRes.2019,47,D94–
D99.
30. Nilsson,R.H.;Larsson,K.‐H.;Taylor,A.F.S.;Bengtsson‐Palme,J.;Jeppesen,T.S.;Schigel,D.;Kennedy,P.;Picard,K.;Glöckner,
F.O.;Tedersoo,L.;etal.TheUNITEdatabaseformolecularidentificationoffungi:Handlingdarktaxaandparalleltaxonomic
classifications.NucleicAcidsRes.2019,47,D259–D264,doi:10.1093/nar/gky1022.
31. Zhang,Z.;Schwartz,S.;Wagner,L.;Miller,W.AgreedyalgorithmforaligningDNAsequences.J.Comput.Biol.2000,7,203–
214,doi:10.1089/10665270050081478.

Microorganisms2021,9,70657of60


32. Looney,B.P.;Ryberg,M.;Hampe,F.;Sánchez‐García,M.;Matheny,P.B.Intoandoutofthetropics:Globaldiversification
patternsinahyperdiversecladeofectomycorrhizalfungi.Mol.Ecol.2016,25,630–647.
33. Maciá‐Vicente,J.G.;Piepenbring,M.;Koukol,O.Brassicaceousrootsasanunexpecteddiversityhot‐spotofhelotialean
endophytes.ImaFungus2020,11,1–23,doi:10.1186/s43008‐020‐00036‐w.
34. Větrovský,T.;Morais,D.;Kohout,P.;Lepinay,C.;AlgoraGallardo,C.;AwokunleHollá,S.;DoreenBahnmann,B.;Bílohnědá,
K.;Brabcová,V.;D’Alò,F.;Human,Z.R.;etal.GlobalFungi,aglobaldatabaseoffungaloccurrencesfromhigh‐throughput‐
sequencingmetabarcodingstudies.Sci.Data2020,7,228.
35. GlobalFungiDatabase.Availableonline:Globalfungi.com(accessedon23September2020).
36. Malloch,D.Moulds:TheirIsolation,CultivationandIdentification;UniversityofTorontoPress:Toronto,ON,Canada,1981.
37. Gooding,G.V.;Lucas,G.B.FactorsinfluencingsporangialformationandzoosporeactivityinPhytophthoraparasiticavar.
nicotianae.Phytopathologia1959,49,277–281.
38. Crous,P.W.;Verkley,G.J.M.;Groenewald,J.Z.;Houbraken,J.FungalBiodiversity.CBSLaboratoryManualSeries1;CBS‐KNAW
FungalBiodiversityCentre:Utrecht,TheNetherlands,2019.
39. Huhndorf,S.M.;Miller,A.N.;Fernández,F.A.MolecularsystematicsoftheSordariales:Theorderandthefamily
Lasiosphaeriaceaeredefined.Mycologia2004,96,368−387.
40. Hustad,V.P.;Miller,A.N.StudiesinthegenusGlutinoglossum.Mycologia2015,107,647–657.
41. Réblová,M.;Hernández‐Restrepo,M.;Fournier,J.;Nekvindová,J.NewinsightsintothesystematicsofBactrodesmiumandits
alliesandintroducingnewgenera,speciesandmorphologicalpatternsinthePleurothecialesandSavoryellales
(Sordariomycetes).Stud.Mycol.2020,95,415–466.
42. Réblová,M.;Nekvindová,J.;Kolařík,M.;Hernández‐Restrepo,M.DelimitationandphylogenyofDictyochaeta,and
introductionofAchrochaetaandTubulicollageneranova.Mycologia2021,113,390–433,doi:10.1080/00275514.2020.1822095.
43. Becerra‐Hernández,C.I.;González,I.;DeLuna,E.;Mena‐Portales,J.FirstreportofpleoanamorphyinGyrothrixverticicladawith
anIdriella‐likesynanamorph.Cryptogam.Mycol.2019,37,241–252.
44. Crous,PW.;Verkley,G.J.M.;Christensen,M.;Castañeda‐Ruíz,R.F.;Groenewald,J.Z.Howimportantareconidialappendages?
Persoonia2012,28,126–137.
45. Crous,P.W.;Shivas,R.G.;Quaedvlieg,W.;vanderBank,M.;Zhang,Y.;Summerell,B.A.;Guarro,J.;Wingfield,M.J.;Wood,
A.R.;Alfenas,A.C.;etal.FungalPlanetdescriptionsheets:214–280.Persoonia2014,32,184–306.
46. Crous,P.W.;Wingfield,M.J.;Richardson,D.M.;Leroux,J.J.;Strasberg,D.;Edwards,J.;Roets,F.;Hubka,V.;Taylor,P.W.J.;
Heykoop,M.;etal.FungalPlanetdescriptionsheets:400–468.Persoonia2016,36,316–458.
47. Crous,P.W.;Wingfield,M.J.;Burgess,T.I.;Carnegie,A.J.;Hardy,G.E.St.J.;Smith,D.;Summerell,B.A.;Cano‐Lira,J.F.;Guarro,
J.;Houbraken,J.;etal.FungalPlanetdescriptionsheets:625–715.Persoonia2017,39,270–467.
48. Crous,P.W.;Carnegie,A.J.;Wingfield,M.J.;Sharma,R.;Mughini,G.;Noordeloos,M.E.;Santini,A.;Shouche,Y.S.;Bezerra,
J.D.P.;Dima,B.;etal.FungalPlanetdescriptionsheets:868–950.Persoonia2019,42,291–473.
49. Hashimoto,A.;Sato,G.;Matsuda,T.;Matsumura,M.;Hatakeyama,S.;Harada,Y.;Ikeda,H.;Tanaka,K.Taxonomicrevisionof
PseudolachneaandPseudolachnella,andestablishmentofNeopseudolachnellaandPseudodinemasporiumgeneranova.Mycologia
2015,107,383–408.
50. Hernández‐Restrepo,M.;Schumacher,R.K.;Wingfield,M.J.;Ahmad,I.;Cai,L.;Duong,T.A.;Edwards,J.;Gené,J.;Groenewald,
J.Z.;Jabeen,S.;etal.FungalSystematicsandEvolution:FUSE2.Sydowia2016,68,193−230.
51. Hernández‐Restrepo,M.;Schumacher,R.K.;Wingfield,M.J.;Ahmad,I.;Cai,L.;Duong,T.A.;Edwards,J.;Gené,J.;Groenewald,
J.Z.;Jabeen,S.;etal.TheGeneraofFungi–G6:Arthrographis,Kramasamuha,Melnikomyces,Thysanorea,andVerruconis.Fungal
SystematicsandEvolution2020,6,1−24.
52. Jaklitsch,W.M.;Voglmayr,H.PhylogeneticrelationshipsoffivegeneraofXylarialesandRosasphaeriagen.nov.(Hypocreales).
FungalDivers.2012,52,75−98.
53. Jaklitsch,W.M.;Fournier,J.;Rogers,J.D.;Voglmayr,H.PhylogeneticandtaxonomicrevisionofLopadostoma.Persoonia2014,32,
52−82.
54. Jaklitsch,W.M.;Gardiennet,A.;Voglmayr,H.Resolutionofmorphology‐basedtaxonomicdelusions:Acrocordiella,
Basiseptospora,Blogiascospora,Clypeosphaeria,Hymenopleella,Lepteutypa,Pseudapiospora,Requienella,SeiridiumandStrickeria.
Persoonia2016,37,82−105.
55. Konta,S.;Hongsanan,S.;Tibpromma,S.;Thongbai,B.;Maharachchikumbura,S.S.N.;Bahkali,A.H.;Hyde,K.D.;Boonmee,S.
Anadvanceintheendophytestory:Oxydothidaceaefam.nov.withsixnewspeciesofOxydothis.Mycosphere2016,7,1425−1446.
56. Lin,C.G.;McKenzie,E.H.C.;Liu,J.K.;Jones,E.B.G.;Hyde,K.D.Hyaline‐sporedchaetosphaeriaceoushyphomycetesfrom
ThailandandChina,withareviewofthefamilyChaetosphaeriaceae.Mycosphere2019,10,655–700.
57. Liu,F.;Bonthond,G.;Groenewald,J.Z.;Cai,L.;Crous,P.W.Sporocadaceae,afamilyofcoelomycetousfungiwithappendage‐
bearingconidia.Stud.Mycol.2019,92,287−415.
58. Lombard,L.;vanderMerwe,N.A.;Groenewald,J.Z.;Crous,P.W.GenericconceptsinNectriaceae.Stud.Mycol.2015,80,
189−245.
59. Lu,Y.Z.;Liu,K.J.;Hyde,K.D.;Bhat,D.J.;Xiao,Y.P.;Tian,Q.;Wen,T.C.;Boonmee,S.;Kang,J.C.Brunneodinemasporiumjonesii
andTainosphaeriajonesiispp.nov.(Chaetosphaeriaceae,Chaetosphaeriales)fromsouthernChina.Mycosphere2016,7,1322–1331.
60. Luo,Z.L.;Hyde,K.D.;Liu,J.‐K.;Maharachchikumbura,S.S.N.;Rajesh,J.;Bao,D.‐F.;Bhat,D.J.;Lin,C.‐G.;Li,W.‐L.;Yang,J.;et
al.Freshwatersordariomycetes.FungalDivers.2019,99,451–660.

Microorganisms2021,9,70658of60


61. Miller,A.N.;Huhndorf,S.M.AnaturalclassificationofLasiosphaeriabasedonnuclearLSUrDNAsequences.Mycol.Res.2004,
108,26–34.
62. Miller,A.N.;Huhndorf,S.M.;Fournier,J.PhylogeneticrelationshipsoffiveuncommonspeciesofLasiosphaeriaandthreenew
speciesintheHelminthosphaeriaceae(Sordariomycetes).Mycologia2014,106,505–524.
63. Réblová,M.;Winka,K.PhylogenyofChaetosphaeriaanditsanamorphsbasedonmorphologicalandmoleculardata.Mycologia
2000,92,939–954.
64. Réblová,M.;Mostert,L.;Gams,W.;Crous,P.W.NewgeneraintheCalosphaeriales:TogniniellaanditsanamorphPhaeocrella,and
CalosphaeriophoraasanamorphofCalosphaeria.Stud.Mycol.2004,50,533–550.
65. Réblová,M.;Réblová,K.;Štěpánek,V.MolecularsystematicsofBarbatosphaeria(Sordariomycetes):Multigenephylogenyand
secondaryITSstructure.Persoonia2015,35,21–38.
66. Réblová,M.;Seifert,K.A.;Fournier,J.;Štěpánek,V.Newlyrecognisedlineagesofperithecialascomycetes:Theneworders
ConioscyphalesandPleurotheciales.Persoonia2016,37,57–81.
67. Réblová,M.;Miller,A.N.;Réblová,K.;Štěpánek,V.PhylogeneticclassificationandgenericdelineationofCalyptosphaeriagen.
nov.,Lentomitella,SpadicoidesandTorrentispora(Sordariomycetes).Stud.Mycol.2018,89,1–62.
68. Samarakoon,M.C.;Liu,J.K.;Hyde,K.D.;Promputtha,I.TwonewspeciesofAmphisphaeria(Amphisphaeriaceae)fromnorthern
Thailand.Phytotaxa2019,391,207–217.
69. Shenoy,B.D.;Jeewon,R.;Wu,W.P.;Bhat,D.J.;Hyde,K.D.Ribosomalandrpb2DNAsequenceanalysessuggestthat
Sporidesmiumandmorphologicallysimilargeneraarepolyphyletic.Mycol.Res.2006,110,916–928.
70. Spatafora,J.W.;Sung,G.‐H.;Johnson,D.;Hesse,C.;OʹRourke,B.;Serdani,M.;Spotts,R.;Lutzoni,F.;Hofstetter,V.;
Miadlikowska,J.Afive‐genephylogenyofPezizomycotina.Mycologia2007,98,1018–1028.
71. VoglmayrH,FriebesG,Gardiennet,A.;JaklitschWM.BarrmaeliaandEntosordariainBarrmaeliaceae(fam.nov.,Xylariales)and
criticalnotesonAnthostomella‐likegenerabasedonmultigenephylogenies.Mycol.Prog.2017,17,155–177.
72. Voglmayr,H.;Aguirre‐Hudson,M.B.;Wagner,H.G.;Tello,S.;Jaklitsch,W.M.Lichensorendophytes?Theenigmaticgenus
LeptosilliaintheLeptosilliaceaefam.nov.(Xylariales),andFurfurellagen.nov.(Delonicicolaceae).Persoonia2019,42,228–260.
73. Vu,D.;Groenewald,M.;deVries,M.;Gehrmann,T.;Stielow,B.;Eberhardt,U.;Al‐Hatmi,A.;Groenewald,J.Z.;Cardinali,G.;
Houbraken,J.;etal.Large‐scalegenerationandanalysisoffilamentousfungalDNAbarcodesboostscoverageforkingdom
fungiandrevealsthresholdsforfungalspeciesandhighertaxondelimitation.Stud.Mycol.2019,92,135–154.
74. Wendt,L.;Sir,E.B.;Kuhnert,E.;Heitkämper,S.;Lambert,C.;Hladki,A.I.;Romero,A.I.;Luangsa‐ard,J.J.;Srikitikulchai,P.;
Peršoh,D.;etal.ResurrectionandemendationoftheHypoxylaceae,recognisedfromamultigenephylogenyoftheXylariales.
Mycol.Prog.2018,17,115–154.
75. Yang,J.;Liu,N.G.;Liu,J.K.;Hyde,K.D.;Jones,E.B.G.;Liu,Z.Y.PhylogeneticplacementofCryptophiale,Cryptophialoidea,
Nawawia,Neonawawiagen.nov.andPhialosporostilbe.Mycosphere2018,9,1132–1150.
76. Hall,T.A.BioEdit5.0.9:Auser‐friendlybiologicalsequencealignmenteditorandanalysisprogramforWindows95/98/NT.
NucleicAcidsSymp.Ser.1999,41,95–98.
77. Lanfear,R.;Frandsen,P.B.;Wright,A.M.;Senfeld,T.;Calcott,B.PartitionFinder2:Newmethodsforselectingpartitioned
modelsofevolutionformolecularandmorphologicalphylogeneticanalyses.Mol.Biol.Evol.2017,34,772−773.
78. Miller,M.A.;Pfeiffer,W.;Schwartz,T.CreatingtheCIPRESScienceGatewayforinferenceoflargephylogenetictrees.
ProceedingsoftheGatewayComputingEnvironmentsWorkshop(GCE),14November2010,NewOrleans,LA,USA;pp.1–8.
79. CIPRESScienceGateway.Availableonline:www.phylo.org(accessedon10October2020).
80. Stamatakis,A.RAxMLVersion8:Atoolforphylogeneticanalysisandpost‐analysisoflargephylogenies.Bioinformatics2014,
30,1312–1313.
81. Huelsenbeck,J.P.;Ronquist,F.MrBayes:Bayesianinferenceofphylogenetictrees.Bioinformatics2001,17,754–755.
82. Kumar,S.;Stecher,G.;Li,M.;Knyaz,C.;Tamura,K.MEGAX:MolecularEvolutionaryGeneticsAnalysisacrosscomputing
platforms.Mol.Biol.Evol.2018,35,1547–1549.
83. Guindon,S.;Dufayard,J.F.;Lefort,V.;Anisimova,M.;Hordijk,W.;Gascuel,O.Newalgorithmsandmethodstoestimate
maximum‐likelihoodphylogenies:AssessingtheperformanceofPhyML3.0.Syst.Biol.2010,59,307–321.
84. Stadler,M.;Lambert,C.;Wibberg,D.;Kalinowski,J.;Cox,R.J.;Kolařík,M.;Kuhnert,E.IntragenomicpolymorphismsintheITS
regionofhigh‐qualitygenomesoftheHypoxylaceae(Xylariales,Ascomycota).Mycol.Prog.2020,19,235–245.
85. Réblová,M.FournewspeciesofChaetosphaeriafromNewZealandandredescriptionofDictyochaetafuegiana.Stud.Mycol.2004,
50,171–186.
86. Perera,R.H.;Maharachchikumbura,S.S.N.;Bhat,J.D.;Al‐Sadi,A.M.;Liu,J.K.;Hyde,K.D.;Liu,Z.Y.NewspeciesofThozetella
andChaetosphaeriaandnewrecordsofChaetosphaeriaandTainosphaeriafromThailand.Mycosphere2016,7,1301–1321.
87. Sutton,B.C.;Hodges,C.S.,Jr.Eucalyptusmicrofungi:Somesetosehyphomyceteswithphialides.NovaHedwig.1976,27,343–
347.
88. Rao,V.G.;deHoog,G.S.NeworcriticalhyphomycetesfromIndia.Stud.Mycol.1986,28,1−84.
89. Barbosa,F.R.;Raja,H.A.;Shearer,C.A.;Gusmão,L.F.P.SomefreshwaterfungifromtheBraziliansemi‐aridregion,including
twonewspeciesofhyphomycetes.Cryptogam.Mycol.2013,34,243–258.
90. Monteiro,J.S.;Sarmento,P.S.M.;Sotão,H.M.P.SaprobicconidialfungiassociatedwithpalmleaflitterineasternAmazon,
Brazil.Acad.Bras.Cienc.2019,91,e20180545.

Microorganisms2021,9,70659of60


91. Castañeda‐Ruíz,R.F.DeuteromycotinadeCuba.HyphomycetesIV.;InstitutodeInvestigacionesFundamentalesenAgricultura
Tropical“AlejandrodeHumboldt”:Havana,Cuba,1986.
92. Rambelli,A.;Mulas,B.;Pasqualetti,M.ComparativestudiesonmicrofungiintropicalecosystemsinIvoryCoastlitter:
Behaviourondifferentsubstrata.Mycol.Res.2004,108,325–336.
93. Marques,M.F.O.;Gusmão,L.F.P.;Maia,L.C.RiquezadeespéciesdefungosconidiaisemduasáreasdemataAtlânticanomorro
dapioneira,SerradaJibóia,Bahia,Brasil.ActaBot.Bras.2008,22,954–961.
94. Sutton,B.C.;Hodges,C.S.,Jr.Eucalyptusmicrofungi:Chaetendophragmiopsisgen.nov.andotherhyphomycetes.NovaHedwig.
1978,29,593–607.
95. Sutton,B.C.;Hodges,C.S.,Jr.Eucalyptusmicrofungi:Miscellaneoushyphomycetes.NovaHedwig.1977,28,487–498.
96. Kuthubutheen,A.J.;Nawawi,A.AnewspeciesofSelenosporella(hyphomycetes)fromMalaysia.Trans.Br.Mycol.Soc.1988,91,
331−334.
97. MacGarvieQD.HyphomycetesonJuncuseffususL.Sci.Proc.R.DublinSoc.1968,2,153−161.
98. Sutton,B.C.AnnotatedlistofmicrofungifromtheNandiHills,Mysore.MysoreJ.Agric.Sci.1973,7,400–411.
99. Castañeda‐Ruíz,R.F.;Guerrero,B.;Adamo,G.M.;Morillo,O.;Minter,D.W.;Stadler,M.;Gené,J.;Guarro,J.Anewspeciesof
SelenosporellaandtwomicrofungirecordedfromacloudforestinMérida,Venezuela.Mycotaxon2009,109,63–74.
100. DeHoog,G.SPleoanamorphyofyeast‐likefungiandlittle‐differentiatedhyphomycetes.InPleomorphicFungi.TheDiversityand
itsTaxonomicImplications;Sugiyama,J.,Ed.;Publisher:ElsevierSciencePublishingCo.:NewYork,NY,USA,1987;pp.221–232.
101. Réblová,M.StudiesinChaetosphaeriasensulatoIII.Umbrinosphaeriagen.nov.andMiyoshiellawithSporidesmiumanamorphs.
Mycotaxon1999,71,13–43.
102. Kirk,P.M.NeworinterestingmicrofungiIV.DematiaceoushyphomycetesfromDevon.Trans.Br.Mycol.Soc.1982,78:55−74.
103. Hawksworth,D.L.;Hibbett,D.S.;Kirk,P.M.;Lücking,R.(308–310)ProposalstopermitDNAsequencedatatoserveastypesof
namesoffungi.Taxon2016,65,899–900.
104. Hibbett,D.Theinvisibledimensionoffungaldiversity.Science2016,351,1150–1151.
105. Hongsanan,S.;Jeewon,R.;Purahong,W.;Xie,N.;Liu,J.‐K.;Jayawardena,R.S.;Ekanayaka,A.H.;Dissanayake,A.;Raspé,O.;
Hyde,K.D.;etal.CanweuseenvironmentalDNAasholotypes?FungalDivers.2018,92,1–30.
106. Lücking,R.;Kirk,P.M.;Hawksworth,D.L.Sequence‐basednomenclature:AreplytoThinesetal.andZamoraetal.and
provisionsforanamendedproposal.IMAFungus2018,9,185–198.
107. Ryberg,M.;Nilsson,R.H.Newlightonnamesandnamingofdarktaxa.MycoKeys2018,30,31–39.
108. Thines,M.;Crous,P.W.;Aime,M.C.;Aoki,T.;Cai,L.;Hyde,K.D.;Miller,A.N.;Zhang,N.;Stadler,M.Tenreasonswhya
sequence‐basednomenclatureisnotusefulforfungianytimesoon.IMAFungus2018,9,177–183.
109. Zamora,J.C.;Svensson,M.;Kirschner,R.;Olariaga,I.;Ryman,S.;AlbertoParra,L.;Geml,J.Rosling,A.;Slavomír,A.;Ahti,T.;
etal.ConsiderationsandconsequencesofallowingDNAsequencedataastypesoffungaltaxa.IMAFungus2018,9,167–175.
110. Wu,B.;Hussain,M.;Zhang,W.;Stadler,M.;Liu,X.;Xiang,M.Currentinsightsintofungalspeciesdiversityandperspective
onnamingtheenvironmentalDNAsequencesoffungi.Mycology2019,10,127–140.
111. DeBeer,Z.W.;Marincowitz,S.;Duong,T.A.;Kim,J.J.;Rodrigues,A.;Wingfield,M.J.Hawksworthiomycesgen.nov.
(Ophiostomatales),illustratestheurgencyforadecisiononhowtonamenoveltaxaknownonlyfromenvironmentalnucleic
acidsequences(ENAS).FungalBiol.2016,120,1323–1340.
112. Lücking,R.;Moncada,B.DismantlingMarchandiomphalinaintoAgonimia(Verrucariaceae)andLawreymycesgen.nov.
(Corticiaceae):Settingaprecedenttotheformalrecognitionofthousandsofvoucherlessfungibasedontypesequences.Fungal
Divers.2017,84,119–138.
113. KalsoomKhan,F.;Kluting,K.;Tångrot,J.;Urbina,H.;Ammunet,T.;EshghiSahraei,S.;Rydén,M.;Ryberg,M.;Rosling,A.
Namingtheuntouchable–Environmentalsequencesandnichepartitioningastaxonomicalevidenceinfungi.IMAFungus2020,
11,23.
114. Kuthubutheen,A.J.;Nawawi,A.Cryptophialoideafasciculatasp.nov.andC.manifestacomb.nov.fromMalaysia.Mycol.Res.1994,
98,686−688.
115. Delgado,G.;Mena‐Portales,J.;Gené,J.;Guarro,J.NewspeciesofCryptophialoideaandHughesinia(hyphomycetes,anamorphic
fungi)fromCuba.FungalDivers.2005,20,31–38.
116. IndexFungorum.Availableonline:www.indexfungorum.org(accessedon1December2020).
117. Rambelli,A.;Lunghini,D.Chaetopsinaivoriensis,anewspeciesofdematiaceoushyphomycetes.G.Bot.Ital.1976,110,253–258.
118. Sinclair,R.C.;Eicker,A.;Morgan‐Jones,G.Conicomyces,auniquesynnematoushyphomycetegenusfromSouthAfrica.
Mycologia1983,75,1100–1103.
119. Arnaud,G.Mycologieconcrète:GeneraII.Bull.Soc.Mycol.Fr.1953,69,265–306.
120. Hughes,S.J.NewZealandfungi1.CeratosporiumSchw.N.Z.J.Bot.1964,2,305−309.
121. Hughes,S.J.RelocationofspeciesofEndophragmiaauct.withnotesonrelevantgenericnames.N.Z.J.Bot.1979,17,139−188.
122. Sivanesan,A.StudiesonAscomycetes.Trans.Br.Mycol.Soc.1983,81,313−332.
123. SamuelsGJ.;Müller,E.;PetriniOA.StudiesontheAmphisphaeriaceae(sensulato)3.NewspeciesofMonographellaand
Pestalosphaeriaandtwonewgenera.Mycotaxon1987,28,473−499.
124. Samuels,G.J.;Rossmann,A.Y.StudiesintheAmphisphaeriaceae(sensulato)2.Leiosphaerellacocoësandtwonewspeciesof
Oxydothisonpalms.Mycotaxon1987,28,461−471.

Microorganisms2021,9,70660of60


125. Kuthubutheen,A.J.;Nawawi,A.Polytretophoradendroideasp.nov.andP.calcarata(hyphomycetes)fromMalaysia.Mycol.Res.
1991,95,623–627.
126. Lunghini,D.;Pinzari,F.;Zucconi,L.StudiesonMediterraneanhyphomycetes.III.Quadracaeamediterraneaanam.‐gen.andsp.
nov.Mycotaxon1996,60,103−110.
127. Hernández‐Restrepo,M.;Silvera‐Simón,C.;Mena‐Portales,J.;Mercado‐Sierra,A.;Guarro,J.;Gené,J.Threenewspeciesanda
newrecordofDiplococciumfromplantdebrisinSpain.Mycol.Prog.2012,11,191−199.
128. Wang,C.J.K.;Sutton,B.C.Diplococciumhughesiisp.nov.withaSelenosporellasynanamorph.Can.J.Bot.1998,76,1608–1613.
129. Awao,T.;Udagawa,S.I.Endophragmiadimorphospora,anewhyphomycete.Trans.Mycol.Soc.Jap.1974,15,99−10.
130. Gams,W.Phialideswithsolitaryconidia?Remarksonconidiumontogenyinsomehyphomycetes.Persoonia1973,7,161–169.
131. Ellis,M.B.Dematiaceoushyphomycetes.Publisher:CommonwealthMycologicalInstitute,Kew,Surrey,England,1971.
132. Onofri,S.;Castagnola,M.Scanningelectronmicroscopyonsomedematiaceoussympodiallyproliferatinghyphomycetes.My‐
cotaxon1982,14,125−139.
133. Castañeda‐Ruíz,R.F.;Kendrick,B.Ninety‐nineconidialfungifromCubaandthreefromCanada.Univ.WaterlooBiol.Ser.1991,
35,1–132.
134. Hernández‐Restrepo,M.;Groenewald,J.Z.;Crous,P.W.Taxonomicandphylogeneticre‐evaluationofMicrodochium,
MonographellaandIdriella.Persoonia2016,36,57−82.
135. Corda,A.C.J.IconesFungorumhucusqueCognitorum3.J.G.;Calve,Ed.;Prague,CzechRepublic,1839.
136. Mena‐Portales,J.;Hernández‐Restrepo,M.;Gené,J.;Minter,D.AnewspeciesandanewcombinationofCeratocladiumCorda
(anamorphicfungi)fromSpain.Mycol.Prog.2011,10,493–496.
137. Sutton,B.C.;Hodges,C.S.,Jr.Eucalyptusmicrofungi:TwonewhyphomycetegenerafromBrazil.NovaHedwig.1975,26,527–
533.
