Advertisement

Mycological Progress

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 31–39 | Cite as

About the genus Thecaphora (Glomosporiaceae) and its new synonyms

  • Kálmán Vánky
  • Matthias LutzEmail author
  • Robert Bauer
Original Article

Abstract

After a short overview of the species of Thecaphora, some of the morphological characteristics of the genus, particularly the presence of spore balls and absence of sterile cells, as well as the variable germination pattern, are discussed. Based on morphological, ultrastructural and molecular phylogenetic analyses using LSU rDNA sequences, it is shown that, in addition to Tothiella, both Glomosporium and Kochmania are synonyms of the genus Thecaphora. A new combination, Thecaphora oxalidis, is proposed for Ustilago oxalidis. A slightly modified description of the genus Thecaphora is given. The uncertain generic position of two Thecaphora species, T. anemarrhenae and T. bulbinellae, on monocotyledonous host plants is discussed.

Keywords

Spore Germination Oxalis Smut Fungus Spore Morphology Sterile Cell 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to R.G. Shivas (Brisbane, Australia) and M. Piątek (Kraków, Poland) for reading the manuscript and for their useful suggestions. The technical assistance with TEM from M. Wagner-Eha (Tübingen, Germany) is kindly acknowledged.

References

  1. Bauer R, Oberwinkler F, Vánky K (1997) Ultrastructural markers and systematics in smut fungi and allied taxa. Can J Bot 75:1273–1314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauer R, Begerow D, Oberwinkler F, Piepenbring M, Berbee ML (2001) Ustilaginomycetes. In: McLaughlin DJ, McLaughlin EG, Lemke PA (eds) The Mycota 7B. Systematics and evolution. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 57–83Google Scholar
  3. Bauer R, Begerow D, Sampaio JP, Weiß M, Oberwinkler F (2006) The simple-septate basidiomycetes: a synopsis. Mycol Prog 5:41–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck G (1886) Zur Pilzflora Niederösterreichs. III. Verh KK Zool-Bot Ges Wien 35:361–376Google Scholar
  5. Begerow D, Bauer R, Oberwinkler F (1997) Phylogenetic studies on nuclear large subunit ribosomal DNA sequences of smut fungi and related taxa. Can J Bot 75:2045–2056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Begerow D, Bauer R, Boekhout T (2000) Phylogenetic placement of ustilaginomycetous anamorphs as deduced from nuclear LSU rDNA sequences. Mycol Res 104:53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Begerow D, Stoll M, Bauer R ((2007)2006) A phylogenetic hypothesis of Ustilaginomycotina based on multiple gene analyses and morphological data. Mycologia 98:906–916PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Brefeld O (1883) Botanische Untersuchungen über Hefenpilze. 5. Die Brandpilze I (Ustilagineen). Felix, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  9. Chow C-H, Chang C-C (1974) A new smut fungus on Anemarrhena asphodeloides Bge. Acta Microbiol Sin 14:161–163Google Scholar
  10. Clements FE, Shear CL (1931) The genera of fungi. Wilson, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Clinton GP (1902) North American Ustilagineae. J Mycol 8:128–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Denchev CM (1997) New combinations in Bauhinus (Microbotryaceae). Mycotaxon 65:419–426Google Scholar
  13. Dietel P (1897) Untersuchung über einige Brandpilze. Flora 83:77–87Google Scholar
  14. Dietel P (1898) Einige Brandpilze aus Südamerika. Hedwigia Beiblatt 37:147–149Google Scholar
  15. Durán R (1987) Ustilaginales of Mexico. Taxonomy, symptomatology, spore germination, and basidial cytology. Washington State University, PullmanGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellis JB, Tracy SM (1890) A few new fungi. J Mycol 6:76–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fingerhuth CA (1836) Mykologische Beiträge. Linnaea 10:230–232Google Scholar
  18. Gatesy J, DeSalle R, Wheeler WC (1993) Alignment-ambiguous nucleotide sites and the exclusion of systematic data. Mol Phylogenet Evol 2:152–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Giribet G, Wheeler WC (1999) On gaps. Mol Phylogenet Evol 13:132–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hirschhorn E (1950) Nota crítica sobre las especies de Glomosporium. Bol Soc Argent Bot 3:92–97Google Scholar
  21. Huelsenbeck JP, Rannala B (2004) Frequentist properties of Bayesian posterior probabilities of phylogenetic trees under simple and complex substitution models. Syst Biol 53:904–913PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist FR (2001) MRBAYES, Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 17:754–755PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huelsenbeck JP, Larget B, Miller RE, Ronquist F (2002) Potential applications and pitfalls of Bayesian inference of phylogeny. Syst Biol 51:673–688PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ingold CT (1987) Aerial sporidia of Ustilago hypodytes and of Sorosporium saponariae. Trans Br Mycol Soc 89:471–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Juel O (1894) Mykologische Beiträge. II. – Öfversigt af Kongl. Vetenskaps-Akademien Förhandlingar 51:491–502Google Scholar
  26. Katoh K, Misawa K, Kuma K, Miyata T (2002) MAFFT: a novel method for rapid multiple sequence alignment based on fast Fourier transform. Nucleic Acids Res 30:3059–3066PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Katoh K, Kuma K, Toh H, Miyata T (2005) MAFFT version 5, improvement in accuracy of multiple sequence alignment. Nucleic Acids Res 33:511–518PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kochman J (1939) Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Brandpilzflora Polens (II). Acta Soc Bot Poloniae 16:53–67Google Scholar
  29. Lutz M, Bauer R, Begerow D, Oberwinkler F, Triebel D (2004) Tuberculina, rust relatives attack rusts. Mycologia 96:614–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mordue JEM (1988) C. M. I. Descriptions of pathogenic fungi and bacteria. Set 97, Nos. 961–970. Mycopathologia 103:167–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nagler A (1986) Untersuchungen zur Gattungsabgrenzung von Ginanniella Ciferri und Urocystis Rabenhorst sowie zur Ontogenie von Thecaphora seminis-convolvuli (Desm.) Ito. Dissertation. Fakultät für Biologie der Eberhard-Karls-Universität TübingenGoogle Scholar
  32. Norton JBS (1896) A study of the Kansas Ustilagineae, especially with regard to their germination. Trans Acad Sci St. Louis 7:229–241Google Scholar
  33. O’Brien MJ, Thirumalachar MJ (1974(1972)) The identity of potato smut. Sydowia 26:199–203Google Scholar
  34. O’Donnell KL (1992) Ribosomal DNA internal transcribed spacers are highly divergent in the phytopathogenic ascomycete Fusarium sambucinum (Gibberella pulicaris). Curr Genet 22:213–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. O’Donnell KL (1993) Fusarium and its near relatives. In: Reynolds DR, Taylor JW (eds) The fungal holomorph: mitotic, meiotic and pleomorphic speciation in fungal systematics. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 225–233Google Scholar
  36. Piątek M (2005) Kochmania, a new genus of smut fungi, and new records of cypericolous species from Poland and Ukraine. Mycotaxon 92:33–42Google Scholar
  37. Piepenbring M, Bauer R (1995) Noteworthy germinations of some Costa Rican Ustilaginales. Mycol Res 99:853–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Posada D, Crandall KA (1998) MODELTEST, testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14:817–818PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ronquist FR, Huelsenbeck JP (2003) MRBAYES 3, Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19:1572–1574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rudolphi F (1829) Plantarum vel novarum vel minus cognitarum descriptiones. Linnaea 4:114–120Google Scholar
  41. Swofford DL (2001) PAUP* Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and Other Methods). Version 4. Sinauer, Sunderland, MassGoogle Scholar
  42. Talbot PHB (1958) New and interesting records of South African fungi. Part III. Bothalia 7:109–111Google Scholar
  43. Thirumalachar MJ (1950) Notes on some Indian Ustilagineae. I. Lloydia 13:165–172Google Scholar
  44. Vánky K (1988) Taxonomical studies on Ustilaginales. III. Mycotaxon 33:365–374Google Scholar
  45. Vánky K (1994a) European smut fungi. Gustav Fischer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  46. Vánky K (1994b) Taxonomical studies on Ustilaginales. XI. Mycotaxon 51:153–174Google Scholar
  47. Vánky K (1998a) Proposal to conserve the generic name Thecaphora Fingerhuth against Sorosporium Rudolphi (Fungi, Ustilaginales). Taxon 47:153–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vánky K (1998b) Taxonomical studies on Ustilaginales. XVIII. Mycotaxon 69:93–115Google Scholar
  49. Vánky K (1999) The new classificatory system for smut fungi, and two new genera. Mycotaxon 70:35–49Google Scholar
  50. Vánky K (2002) Illustrated genera of smut fungi, 2nd edn. APS Press, St. Paul, MinnGoogle Scholar
  51. Vánky K (2004) Taxonomic studies on Ustilaginomycetes - 24. Mycotaxon 89:55–118Google Scholar
  52. Weiß M, Bauer R, Begerow D (2004) Spotlights on heterobasidiomycetes. In: Agerer R, Piepenbring M, Blanz P (eds) Frontiers in basidiomycote mycology. IHW, Eching, pp 7–48Google Scholar
  53. Woronin M ((1882)1881) Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Ustilagineen. Abh Senckenberg Naturf Ges 12:559–591Google Scholar
  54. Zundel GL (1937) Miscellaneous notes on the Ustilaginales. Mycologia 29:583–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zundel GL (1953) The Ustilaginales of the world. Pennsylvania State Coll School Agric Dept Bot Contr 176:1–410Google Scholar

Copyright information

© German Mycological Society and Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Herbarium Ustilaginales Vánky (HUV)TübingenGermany
  2. 2.Spezielle Botanik und Mykologie, Botanisches InstitutUniversität TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations