Drepanopezizaceae Baral

Yang, Hong De, Jayawardena, Ruvishika S., Zeng, Xiang Yu, Thiyagaraja, Vinodhini, Zhao, Qi & Hyde, Kevin D., 2024, Recommendations on approving the name “ Entomosporium ”, with a new species, E. dichotomanthes from China (Leotiomycetes, Drepanopezizaceae), MycoKeys 107, pp. 1-20 : 1-20

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.3897/mycokeys.107.121962

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12707484

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9FD072A4-2569-5706-823F-A8AABB596DB5

treatment provided by

MycoKeys by Pensoft

scientific name

Drepanopezizaceae Baral
status

 

Drepanopezizaceae Baral View in CoL View at ENA

Fig. 3 View Figure 3

Type.

Drepanopeziza (Kleb.) Jaap 1914 .

Description.

Sexual morph: Ascomata small-sized, up to 2 mm in diameter, apothecial, cupulate, margin often protruding, with or without lobes, sessile and mostly immersed. Excipulum is composed of cells of textura angularis. Paraphyses hyaline, thin-walled, aseptate or septate, apically swollen. Asci 4–8 - spored, clavate or cylindrical, apex obtuse to conical, with or without apical ring. Ascospores ellipsoid to fusoid, aseptate or 1–2 - septate. Asexual morph: Conidiomata solitary to gregarious or confluent, mostly epiphyllous, acervulus. Conidiogenesis holoblastic. Conidia hyaline, thin-walled.

Notes.

Drepanopezizaceae was described with sexual and asexual morphs. Both life morphs were found as parasitic on leaves of various dicotyledons, and rarely on herbaceous ( Johnston et al. 2019). The sexual morph is recognized by the cupulate, apothecial ascomata, and the paraphyses with swollen apical ( Harada et al. 1974; Williamson and Bernard 1988; Spiers and Hopcroft 1998). The asexual morph is acervular but varies in conidial shape among genera ( Crous et al. 2009; Khodadadi et al. 2022). The family name was first time used by Batista and Maia (1960), but was invalid because of unavailable diagnosis or description ( Johnston et al. 2019). It was difficult to trace back the history of members accommodated in the family until Johnston et al. (2019), validated the family name based on the phylogenetic analysis (Table 2 View Table 2 ).