Talaromyces rosarhiza H. Zhang & Y. L. Jiang, 2021

Zhang, Hong, Wei, Tian-Peng, Mao, Yu-Tao, Ma, Ming-Xia, Ma, Kai, Shen, Ying, Zheng, Mei-Juan, Jia, Wei-Yu, Luo, Ming-Yan, Zeng, Yan, Jiang, Yu-Lan & Tao, Guang-Can, 2021, Ascodesmis rosicola sp. nov. and Talaromyces rosarhiza sp. nov., two endophytes from Rosa roxburghii in China, Biodiversity Data Journal 9, pp. 70088-70088 : 70088

publication ID

https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.9.e70088

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/3D225F1A-55E7-5704-897A-D2ACAF5C22F0

treatment provided by

Biodiversity Data Journal by Pensoft

scientific name

Talaromyces rosarhiza H. Zhang & Y. L. Jiang
status

sp. nov.

Talaromyces rosarhiza H. Zhang & Y. L. Jiang sp. nov.

Materials

Type status: Holotype. Occurrence: catalogNumber: GUCC 190040.1 ; recordedBy: Hong Zhang; Taxon : scientificName: Talaromyces rosarhiza; kingdom: Fungi ; phylum: Ascomycota ; class: Eurotiomycetes ; order: Eurotiales ; family: Trichocomaceae ; genus: Talaromyces ; Location : country: China; stateProvince: Guizhou; locality: Guiyang ; Identification : identifiedBy: Hong Zhang ; dateIdentified: 2021 Type status: Other material. Occurrence: catalogNumber: GUCC 197011.1 ; recordedBy: Hong Zhang; Taxon : scientificName: Talaromyces rosarhiza; kingdom: Fungi ; phylum: Ascomycota ; class: Eurotiomycetes ; order: Eurotiales ; family: Trichocomaceae ; genus: Talaromyces ; Location : country: China; stateProvince: Guizhou; locality: Guiyang ; Identification : identifiedBy: Hong Zhang ; dateIdentified: 2021

Description

Endophyte of R. roxburghii . Sexual morph not observed. Asexual morph (Fig. 3 View Figure 3 ): Mycelium superficial, pale brown, septate, branched. Conidiophores monoverticillate and biverticillate, a minor proportion terverticillate, macronematous, mostly straight, smooth, branched, thick-walled. For biverticillate conidiophores, metulae 2-3, appressed or divergent, 6.0-14.5 × 1.5-3.0 µm (av. = 10.5 × 2.5 µm, n = 30); phialides ampulliform, tapering into very thin neck, 2-3 per metula, 6.5-15.0 × 1.5-3.5 µm (av. = 10.0 × 2.5 µm, n = 30). For monoverticillate ones, phialides 1-6, ampulliform, tapering into very thin neck, 10.5-16.0 × 2.5-4.0 µm (av. = 12.5 × 3.0 µm, n = 30), conidia subglobose to ellipsoidal, smooth-walled, 2.5-4.0 × 2.0-3.0 µm (av. = 3.0 × 2.5 µm, n = 30).

Cultural characteristics: Description based on GUCC 190040.1. On PDA, reaching 50 mm in diameter after 14 days of cultivation in dark at 28°C; moderately deep, slightly sulcate, flat; margin entire, mycelium white. On OA, reaching 42 mm in diameter under the same conditions, low, flat; margin low, entire; mycelium white; velvety; abundant sporulation; conidia en masse dark olive green. On MEA 28°C, 14 days: reaching 12 mm; raised; margin low, flat, entire; mycelium white; floccose to velvety; abundant sporulation, conidia en masse dull green; soluble pigments absent; exudates absent; reverse greyish orange.

Etymology

The word "rosarhiza" originated from “rosa” referring to the host plant, Rosa roxburghii and “rhiza” referring to root, from which this fungus was isolated.

Notes

Talaromyces rosarhiza is described as a new species, based on morphology and phylogenetic analyses. Phylogenetic analysis (Fig. 4 View Figure 4 ) was carried out using combined ITS, BenA, CaM and RPB2 sequence data. Clustered together with T. francoae , T. kendrickii , T. mangshanicus , T. qii and T. thailandensis and belonged to section Talaromyces Talaromyces . The two T. rosarhiza isolates clustered with strong support (BS = 100, PP = 1) and closely related to T. francoae , but located in a distinct clade with good support (BS = 90, PP = 1). Detailed morphological differences between T. rosarhiza and its related taxa are summarised in Table 4 View Table 4 ( Yilmaz et al. 2016, Visagie et al. 2015, Wang et al. 2017, Wang et al. 2016, Manoch et al. 2013). Talaromyces rosarhiza can be distinguished from T. francoae by its monoverticillate and biverticillate conidiophores (while T. francoae biverticillate), number of metulae per verticil (2-3 vs. 3-6), number of phialides per metulae (2-3 vs. 3-6), conidia shape (ellipsoidal vs. globose) and conidial wall (smooth vs. verrucose, rough) ( Yilmaz et al. 2016).