Mycopathologia

, Volume 106, Issue 3, pp 155–161 | Cite as

Problems in application of the terms ‘blastic’ and ‘thallic’ to modes of conidiogenesis in some onygenalean fungi

  • Lynne Sigler
Article

Abstract

In 1969, specialists at the Kananaskis hyphomycete workshop coined the terms ’blastic’ and ’thallic’ to describe two distinct modes of conidiogenesis. Since then, the original concepts have been slightly modified and redefined, and the terms have been widely adopted in taxonomic descriptions of conidial fungi. Problems arise in the application of these terms to conidial development in fungi which demonstrate morphological plasticity ranging from fragmentation of a hypha to extrusion of a portion of a hypha or cell. A number of fungi, such as anamorphs of Onygenales which includes many of the fungi pathogenic to man, demonstrate intergradations between blastic and thallic development. Because development in this group of fungi is difficult to categorize, it has led to an inconsistent treatment of taxa which share many other developmental features in common. In using these terms, it should be remembered that they represent extremes in a developmental spectrum.

Key words

conidiogenesis blastic thallic ontogeny Onygenales aleuriospores 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arx JA von. Ascomycetes as Fungi Imperfecti. In: Kendrick, B, ed. The whole fungus. Vol. I. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada, 1979: 201–213.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Campbell CK. Conidiogenesis of fungi pathogenic for man. CRC Critical Reviews in Microbiology 1985; 12: 321–341.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caprilli F, Nazzaro P, Mercantini R, Tolono A. Morphological and cytological observations on conidial formation of the genera Epidermophyton and Microsporon. Mycopath Mycol Appl 1971; 45: 137–50.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carmichael JW. Chrysosporium and some other aleuriosporic Hyphomycetes. Can J Bot 1962; 40: 1137–73.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carmichael JW. Blastospores, aleuriospores and chlamydospores. In: Kendrick B, ed. Taxonomy of fungi imperfecti. Toronto: Univ. Toronto Press, 1971: 48–70.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cole GT, Samson RA. Patterns of development in conidial fungi. London: Pitman, 1979.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Currah RS. Taxonomy of the Onygenales: Arthrodermataceae, Gymnoascaceae, Myxotrichaceae and Onygenaceae. Mycotaxon 1985; 24: 1–216.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Currah RS, Sigler L, Hambleton S. New records and a new taxa of fungi from the mycorrhizae of terrestrial orchids of Alberta. Can J Bot 1987; 65: 2473–82.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Galgoczy J. Dermatophytes: conidium ontogeny and classification. Acta Microbiol Acad Sci Hung 1975; 22: 105–36.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Galgoczy J. Conidium ontgeny of dermatophytes. Acta Microbiol Acad Sci Hung 1978; 25: 55–60.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hughes SJ. Conidiophores, conidia and classification. Can J Bot 1953; 31: 577–659.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hughes SJ. The term chlamydospore. In: Arai T, ed. Filamentous microorganisms, biomedical aspects. Tokyo: Japan Scientific Societies Press, 1985: 1–20.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ingold CT. The validity of the concept of conidia as blastic or thallic. Trans Brit mycol Soc 1981; 77: 194–6.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kendrick WB. Taxonomy of Fungi Imperfecti. Toronto: Univ. Toronto Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kendrick B. The whole fungus, Vols. I and II. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada, 1979.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kendrick B. The generic concept in Hyphomycetes — a reappraisal. Mycotaxon 1980; 11: 339–364.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Luttrell ES. Deuteromycetes and their relationships. In: Kendrick B, ed. The whole fungus, Vol. 1. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada, 1979: 241–64.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Minter DW, Kirk PM, Sutton BC. Holoblastic phialides. Trans Brit mycol Soc 1982; 79: 75–93.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Minter DW, Kirk PM, Sutton BC. Thallic phialides. Trans Brit mycol Soc 1983; 80: 39–66.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Minter DW, Sutton BC, Brady BL. What are phialides anyway? Trans Brit mycol Soc 1983; 81: 109–20.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Samuels GJ, Seifert KA. Taxonomic implications of variation among hyphocrealean anamorphs. In: Sugiyama J, ed. Pleomorphic fungi: The diversity and its taxonomic implications. Tokyo: Elsevier, 1987: 29–56.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sigler L, Carmichael JW. Taxonomy of Malbranchea and some other Hyphomycetes with arthroconidia. Mycotaxon 1976; 4: 349–488.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stalpers JA. A revision of the genus Sporotrichum. CBS Studies Mycol 1984; 24: 1–105.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sugiyama J. Pleomorphic fungi: The diversity and its taxonomic implications. Tokyo: Elsevier, 1987.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Torres-Rodriguez JM, ed. Proceedings of the X Congress of the international society for human and animal mycology-ISHAM. Barcelona: J.R. Prous Science, 1988.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van Oorschot CAN. A revision of Chrysosporium and allied genera. CBS Studies Mycol 1980; 20: 1–89.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lynne Sigler
    • 1
  1. 1.Microfungus Collection and Herbarium, Devonian Botanic GardenUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations