Antonie van Leeuwenhoek

, Volume 66, Issue 4, pp 351–355 | Cite as

Podospora Lautarea sp. nov. from Southern Alps (France): description and physiological properties

  • Pascale Guiraud
  • Lucile Sage
  • Françoise Seigle-Murandi
  • Régine Steiman
Research Articles


A taxonomic description ofPodospora Lautarea sp. nov. is provided. This species is characterized by a reddish brown peridium, and by its large, asymmetric ascospores, small, hyaline, unique primary appendage, absence of secondary appendage and cylindrical asci. Due to the size of its appendage, this species may be related toPodospora minicauda Faurel et Locquin-Linard. Asci and ascospores are close to those ofP. fimbriata (Bayer) Cain, but the dimensions and ornamentation of perithecia are quite different. To summarize, this species belongs to the small group ofPodospora exhibiting only one appendage (such asP. minicauda, P. carpinicola Mouchacca orP. horridula (Sacc.) Francis and Sparrow) but can not be assimilated to one of the described species in this group. The main cultural characteristics and physiological properties of this species are described.

Key words

Podospora Lautarea sp. nov. Southern French Alps 



Collection Mycologie Pharmacie Grenoble


Malt Extract Agar


Potato Dextrose Agar




Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aouadi S, Heyraud A, Seigle-Murandi F, Steiman R & Fournet B (1992) Structural analysis and rheological behaviour of an extracellular polysaccharide fromDrechslera spicifera. Carbohyd. Polym. 17: 177–183Google Scholar
  2. Cailleux R (1969) Champignons stercoraux de République Centrafricaine. III —Podospora nouveaux. Cah. Maboké 7: 87–102Google Scholar
  3. Cain RF (1956) Studies of coprophilous ascomycetes. II.Phaeotrichum, a new cleistocarpous genus in a new family, and its relationships. Can. J. Bot. 34: 675–687Google Scholar
  4. —— (1962) Studies of coprophilous ascomycetes VIII. New species ofPodospora. Can. J. Bot. 40: 447–490Google Scholar
  5. De Hoog GS, Seigle-Murandi F, Steiman R & Eriksson KE (1985) A new species ofEmbellisia from the North Sea. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 51: 409–413Google Scholar
  6. Furuya K & Udagawa SI (1972) Coprophilous pyrenomycetes from Japan I. J. Gen. Appl. Microbiol. 18: 433–454Google Scholar
  7. Garcia-Zorron N (1977) Una nueva especie dePodospora (Sphaeriales/Ascomycetes). Bol. Soc. Arg. Bot. XVIII: 173–175Google Scholar
  8. Guarro J, Cannon PF & van der Aa HA (1991) A synopsis of the genusZopfiella (Ascomycetes, Lasiosphaeriaceae). Systema Ascomycetum 10: 79–112Google Scholar
  9. Guiraud P, Seigle-Murandi F, Steiman R & Benoit-Guyod JL (1992) Extracellular phenoloxidases activity of micromycetes from various taxonomic groups. Microbiologica 15: 367–390Google Scholar
  10. Hankin L & Anagnostakis SL (1975) The use of solid media for the detection of enzyme production by fungi. Mycologia 67: 597–607Google Scholar
  11. Khan RS & Krug JC (1991)Podospora fibrinocaudata, a new species from California. Mycologia 83: 817–821Google Scholar
  12. Krug JC & Khan RS (1989) New records and new species ofPodospora from East Africa. Can. J. Bot 67: 1174–1182Google Scholar
  13. Locquin-Linard M (1978) Un nouvel ascomycete coprophile de la famille des Sordariaceae:Podospora minicauda Faurel et Locquin-Linard. Rev. Mycol. 42: 341–345Google Scholar
  14. Lundqvist N (1972) Nordic Sordariaceae s. lat. Symb. Bot. Upsal. 20: 1–374Google Scholar
  15. Malloch D & Benny GL (1973) California ascomycetes: four new species and a new record. Mycologia 65: 648–660Google Scholar
  16. Malloch D & Cain RF (1971a) Four new genera of cleistothecial ascomycetes with hyaline ascospores. Can. J. Bot. 49: 847–854Google Scholar
  17. —— (1971b) New cleistothecial Sordariaceae and a new family, Coniochaetaceae. Can. J. Bot. 49: 869–880Google Scholar
  18. Mirza JH & Cain RF (1969) Revision of the genusPodospora. Can. J. Bot. 47: 1999–2048Google Scholar
  19. Mouchacca J (1986)Podospora carpinicola spec. nov., un ascomycete isolé de feuilles mortes deCarpinus, et deux espèces du même genre. Persoonia 13: 107–112Google Scholar
  20. Okeke B, Steiman R, Seigle-Murandi F & Benoit-Guyod JL (1992) Assessment of microbial metabolites active againstPyricularia oryzae using microtitration and disk diffusion methods. Proc. Intern. Symp. Environ. Aspects Pestic. Microbiol. August 17–21, Sigtuna, Sweden, pp 332–337Google Scholar
  21. Parkinson D & Waid JS (Eds) (1960) The ecology of soil fungi. Liverpool University Press, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  22. Pujol V, Seux V & Villard J (1990) Recherche de substances anti-fongiques sécrétées par les champignons supérieurs en culture. Ann. Pharm. Fr. 48: 17–22Google Scholar
  23. Rao VG & Mani Varghese KI (1989) Forest micro-fungi-VII. Two new taxa of ascomycetes from India. Int. J. Mycol. Lichenol. 4: 155–159Google Scholar
  24. Rinderknecht H, Wilding P & Haverback BJ (1967) A new method for the determination of α-amylase. Experientia 23: 805Google Scholar
  25. Smith RE (1977) Rapid tube test for detecting fungal cellulase production. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 33: 980–981Google Scholar
  26. Sultana N (1987) Some Pyrenomycetous fungi from Lahore. Biologia 33: 265–270Google Scholar
  27. Wang Y, Gloer JB, Scott JA & Malloch D (1993) Appenolides A–C: Three new antifungal furanones from the coprophilous fungusPodospora appendiculata. J. Nat. Prod. 56: 341–344Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pascale Guiraud
    • 1
  • Lucile Sage
    • 1
  • Françoise Seigle-Murandi
    • 1
  • Régine Steiman
    • 1
  1. 1.Groupe pour l'Etude du devenir des Xénobiotiques dans l'Environnement (GEDEXE)Université J. Fourier, UFR PharmacieMeylan cédexFrance

Personalised recommendations