On Chytridium braun, Diplochytridium N. G., and Canteria N. G. (Chytridiales)
The operculate genus Chytridium Braun is emended and restricted to approximately 25 known species and several incompletely known members which lack an apophysis and develop much like species of Rhizophydium, insofar as the zoosporangium and absorbing or rhizoidal system are concerned, and form endobiotic or intramatrical resting spores. This interpretation corresponds fairly closely to Braun's diagnosis of the type species.
A new genus, Diplochytridium, is established to segregate the former Chytridium species with an endobiotic or intramatrical apophysis or prosporangium and resting spores, which may develop sexually or asexually. Some of these species have a well-defined endo-exogenous alternation of growth and development in which the apophysis appears to function as a prosporangium. As interpreted here, Diplochytridium includes approximately 20 of the known species.
Another new genus, Canteria, is created for a parasite of Mougeotia which Canter first described as a species of Phlyctidium but later found to develop endobiotic resting spores or zygospores by the fusion of conjugation tubes.
KeywordsType Species Emend Conjugation Tube Rhizoidal System Chytridium Species
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Canter, H. M.: Studies on British chytrids. II. Some new monocentric chytrids. Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc. 31, 94–105 (1947).Google Scholar
- —: Studies on British chytrids. XIX. On Phlyctidium apophysatum Canter emend. Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc. 44, 522–528 (1961).Google Scholar
- —: Concerning Chytridium cornutum Braun. Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc. 46, 208–212 (1963).Google Scholar
- Karling, J. S.: The endo-exogenous method of growth and development of Chytridium lagenaria. Amer. J. Bot. 22, 439–452 (1936).Google Scholar
- —: Keratinophilic chytrids. III. Rhizophydium nodulosum sp. nov. Mycologia (N.Y.) 40, 328–335 (1948).Google Scholar
- —: Zoosporic fungi of Oceania. IV. Additional monocentric chytrids. Mycopath. et Mycol. Appl. 36, 165–178 (1968).Google Scholar
- Rieth, A.: Zur Phycomycetenflora Württembergs. I. Teil. Naturschutz in Württemberg-Hohenzollern 1950, 259–271 (1951).Google Scholar
- Scherffel, A.: Zur Sexualität der Chytridineen (“Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Chytridineen”) Teil II. Arch. Protistenk. 53, 1–58 (1925).Google Scholar
- Sparrow, F. K., Jr.: Aquatic Phycomycetes, 2nd ed. Ann Arbor: Univ. Michigan Press 1960.Google Scholar
- Whiffen, A. J.: A discussion of taxonomic criteria in the Chytridiales. Farlowia 1, 583–597 (1944).Google Scholar
- Willoughby, L. G.: Studies on soil chytrids. I. Rhizidium richmondense sp. nov., and its parasites. Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc. 39, 125–141 (1956).Google Scholar
- —: A study of the distribution of some lower fungi in soil. Nova Hedwigia 7, 133–150 (1964).Google Scholar