, Volume 74, Issue 2, pp 89–105 | Cite as

Coprophilous fungi of the horse

  • E. Piontelli
  • M. Alicia Toro Santa-maria
  • G. Caretta


A total of 1267 microfungi, including 35 Myxomycetes, were recorded from the fecal samples of the 60 horses; of these 395 were found on 20 saddle-horse feces, 363 on 20 race-horses and 509 on 20 working-horses. Eighty two species representing 53 genera were recorded; of these 7 were Zygomycetes, 18 Ascomycetes, 1 Basidiomycetes and 25 Fungi Imperfecti: 2 Myxomycetes. Common coprophilous fungi are in decreasing orderPilobolus kleinii, Saccobolus depauperatus, Mucor hiemalis, Lasiobolus ciliatus, Podospora curvula, Petriella guttulata, M. circinelloides, Coprinus radiatus, Dictyostelium mucoroides, Sordaria fimicola, C. miser, C. stercorarius, Acremonium sp., Coprotus granuliformis, Graphium putredinis, Iodophanus carneus, Chaetomium murorum, Podospora communis, P. inaequalis, P. setosa, Saccobolus versicolor andCladosporium cucumerinum. Species ofMyrothecium verrucaria, Actinomucor elegans, Kernia nitida, Spiculostilbella dendritica andMucorparvispora were found exclusively in working-horses feces.Badhamia sp., Anixiopsis stercoraria, Echinobotryum state ofD. stemonitis, Geotrichum candidum andOidiodendron sp. were found only in saddle-horses feces.Chlamidomyces palmarum andPhilocopra sp. were found exclusively in race-horses feces.

Notes on infrequent or interesting fungi includeThamnostylum piriforme, Phialocephala dimorphospora, Rhopalomyces elegans andSpiculostilbella dendritica.


Fecal Sample Graphium Mucor Sordaria Coprophilous Fungus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Angel, K. & Wicklow, D. T., 1974. Decomposition of rabbit faeces; an indication of the significance of the coprophilous microflora in energy flow schemes. J. Ecol. 62: 429–437.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Angel, K. & Wicklow, D. T., 1975. Relationship between coprophilous fungi and faecal substrates in Colorado grassland. Mycologia 67: 63–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arx, J. A. von., 1970. In: The genera of fungi sporulating in pure culture, p. 247. J. Cramer, Lehre.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arx, J. A. von., 1975. Revision of Microascus with the description of a new species. Persoonia 8: 191–197.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arx, J. A. von., 1978. Notes on Microascaceae with the description of two new species. Persoonia 10: 23–31.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barron, G. L., Cain, R. F. & Gilman, J. C. 1961. The genus Microascus. Canad. J. Bot. 39: 1609–1631.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brummelen, J. van., 1967. A world-monograph of the genera Ascobolus and Saccobolus (Ascomycetes, Pezizales). Persoonia (Suppl.) I: 1–260.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brummelen, J. van., 1976. Some new species of Saccobolus. Persoonia 8: 421–430.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dickinson, C. H. & Underhay, V. H. S., 1977. Growth of fungi in cattle dung. Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc. 69: 473–477.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harper, J. E. & Webster, J., 1964. An experimental analysis of the coprophilous fungus succession. Trans. Brit. Myc. Soc. 47: 511–530.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ikediugwu, F. E. O. & Webster, J., 1970a. Antagonism between Coprinus heptamerus and other coprophilous fungi. Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc. 54: 181–204.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ikediugwu, F. E. O. & Webster, J., 1970b. Hyphal interference in a range of coprophilous fungi. Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc. 54: 205–210.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kendrick, W. B., 1961. The Leptographium complex, Phialocephala gen. nov. Canad. J. Bot. 39: 1079–1085.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kimbrough, J. W., 1966. Studies in the Pseudoascoboleae. Canad. J. Bot. 44: 685–704.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kimbrough, J. W., 1970. Segregates of Ascophanus, Coprotus vs. Leporina (Thelebolaceae, Pezizales). Taxon 19: 779–781.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kimbrough, J. W., 1972. Ascal structure, ascocarp ontogeny, and a natural classification of the Thelebolaceae. Persoonia 6: 395–404.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kimbrough, J. W. & Korf, R. P., 1967. A sinopsis of the genera and species of the tribe Theleboleae (= Pseudoascoboleae). Amer. J. Bot. 54: 9–23.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Larsen, K., 1971. Danish endocoprophilous fungi, and their sequence of occurrence. Bot. Tidsskr. 66: 1–32.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lazo, W., 1979. Hongos coprofilos de Chile I. Segunda Reunion Nacional de Botanica. Sept., 1979. Santiago, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lundqvist, N., 1972. Nordic Sordariaceae s. lat. Symbolae Botanicae Upsalienses 20, 1: 374 Uppsala.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lodha, B. C., 1974. Decomposizion of digested litter. In: Biology of plant litter decomposition. Vol. I. (Ed. Dickinson, C. H. & Pugh, G. J. F.) pp. 213–241. London, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Malloch, D. & Cain, R. F., 1971. The genus Kernia. Canad. J. Bot. 49: 855–867.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mirza, J. H. & Cain, R. F., 1970. Revision of the genus Podospora. Canad. J. Bot. 47: 1999–2048.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moravec, J., 1971. Diskomycety cěledi Thelebolaceae (Brumm). Eckbl. zokresu Mladá Boleslav v Čechách. Čes. Mykol. 25: 150–160.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morris, E., 1963. Three Hansfordia-like Stilbellaceous Genera. Am. Midl. Nat. 69: 99–105.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nagy, L. A. & Harrower, K. M., 1979. Analysis of two southern hemisphere coprophilous fungus successions. Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc. 72: 69–74.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Petersen, R. H., 1960. Some soil and coprophilous fungi from the South Pacific area. Mycologia 52: 552–556.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Richardson, M. J., 1972. Coprophilous ascomycetes on different dung types. Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc. 58: 37–48.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Singh, N. & Webster, J., 1973 Antagonism between Stilbella erythrocephala and other coprophilous fungi. Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc. 61: 487–495.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Spegazzini, C., 1921. Mycetes chilenses. Bol. Acad. Nac. de Cienc. Córdoba 25: 1–124.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tóth, S., 1963. Data to the knowledge on the coprophilous Microscopic fungi in Hungary I. Ann. Hist. Nat. Mus. Nat. Hung. 55: 181–185.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tóth, S., 1965. Data to the knowledge on the coprophilous Microscopic fungi in Hungary II. Ann. Hist. Nat. Mus. Nat. Hung. 57: 149–157.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Toth, S., 1967. Data on the knowledge on the coprophilous Microscopic fungi in Hungary III. Ann. Hist. Nat. Mus. Nat. Hung. 59: 117–123.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Upadhyay, H. P., 1973. Helicostylum and Thamnostylum (Mucorales). Mycologia 65: 733–751.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vesco, G. dal, Peyronel, B., Barge, M. T. & Volpiana, N., 1967. Sulla micoflora dello sterco di coniglio (‘Oryctolagus cuniculus’). Allionia 13: 107–127.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Webster, J., 1970. Coprophilous fungi. Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc. 54: 161–180.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wicklow, D. T. & Moore, V., 1974. Effect of incubation temperature on the coprophilous fungal succession. Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc. 62: 411–415.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wilson, C. M., 1947. Coprophilous Ascomycetes of Virginia. Mycologia 39: 374–377.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr W. Junk Publishers 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Piontelli
    • 1
  • M. Alicia Toro Santa-maria
    • 1
  • G. Caretta
    • 2
  1. 1.Facultad de Medicina, Section MicologiaUniversidad de ChileValparaisoChile
  2. 2.Centro di Micologia Medica ‘R. Ciferri e P. Redaelli’Università degli Studi di PaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations