17-02-2013 08:38
Alain GARDIENNET
Bonjour, J'ai trouvé ces acervules sur feuille d
21-12-2024 09:08
Castillo Joseba
Me mandan el material seco de Galicia, recolecta
21-12-2024 12:45
Marc Detollenaere
Dear Forum,On naked wood of Fagus, I found some ha
17-12-2024 12:33
Lothar Krieglsteiner
this fluffy anamorph was repeatedly found on decid
20-12-2024 20:30
Bernard CLESSE
Bonsoir à toutes et tous,Pourriez-vous m'aider à
20-12-2024 00:01
Francois Guay
Hi, I found this species on incubated Fir needles
20-12-2024 20:34
Enrique Rubio
Perhaps some of you can help me identify this smal
Discinella sp?
Miguel Ángel Ribes,
07-02-2010 01:30
Good nightI have this species from Tenerife Island (Spain) on soil inside a forest of Pinus radiata, Laurus novocanariensis and Cistus symphytipholius
Apotecios of 6-10 mm diameter, sesil, plate shape, hymenium concave and smooth, beige-creamy color, light brown-yellowish and with lightly greenish and pink tones. Exterior darker, dun - reddish, lightly furfuraceus. Perfectly differentiated edge, lightly involuted, uniform, but disintegrated in small plates when touch. Smell not special, flavor not tested.
Spores smooth, hialine, subcylindrical to narrowly eliptical, with a big and central guttule and someone small, sometimes with two big guttules.
Sporal meassurements (1000x, in water, fresh material)
11.2 [13.8 ; 14.5] 17.1 x 4.5 [5.4 ; 5.6] 6.5
Q = 1.9 [2.5 ; 2.7] 3.2 ; N = 62 ; C = 95%
Me = 14.14 x 5.49 ; Qe = 2.59
Asci red-carmin in IKI (without KOH pretreatment) and dark blue with KOH pretreatment.
More details and photos in the attached file.
Thank you
10271.pdf
Richard Korf,
07-02-2010 04:33
Re:Discinella sp?
This surely sems to be Geocoryne variispora Korf, Mycotaxon 7: 146-151.1975. Widely distributed on Tenerife and Gomera. Also recently found in South America.
Dick Korf
Dick Korf
Hans-Otto Baral,
07-02-2010 12:09
Re:Discinella sp?
Dear Miguel
could you supply us some spores in higher resolution, because I wish to see whether they are alive or not. The ellipsoid oil guttule suggests that it originates from two fused LBs or perhaps even from more smaller ones.
Very good to see the hemiamyloidity of the apical ring! I never saw this species, but it could be that a documentation by Luis Quijada from Tenerife concerns this species (29.XI.91).
Zotto
could you supply us some spores in higher resolution, because I wish to see whether they are alive or not. The ellipsoid oil guttule suggests that it originates from two fused LBs or perhaps even from more smaller ones.
Very good to see the hemiamyloidity of the apical ring! I never saw this species, but it could be that a documentation by Luis Quijada from Tenerife concerns this species (29.XI.91).
Zotto
Miguel Ángel Ribes,
07-02-2010 14:44
Re:Discinella sp?
Dear Richard
Thank you very much, very interesting species. I have read your paper from Cyberliber and I think it fits Ok, but my collection has bigger asci (117-140 vs 75-90), meassured in IKI, and septate and branched at the base paraphysis. Is it possible?
Best regards
Thank you very much, very interesting species. I have read your paper from Cyberliber and I think it fits Ok, but my collection has bigger asci (117-140 vs 75-90), meassured in IKI, and septate and branched at the base paraphysis. Is it possible?
Best regards
Miguel Ángel Ribes,
07-02-2010 14:47
Re:Discinella sp?
Dear Zotto
Here I send spores in higher resolution
Best regards
Here I send spores in higher resolution
Best regards
Miguel Ángel Ribes,
07-02-2010 14:48
Re:Discinella sp?
Another one
Miguel Ángel Ribes,
07-02-2010 14:49
Re:Discinella sp?
One more
I will contact Luis Quijada.
Best regards
I will contact Luis Quijada.
Best regards
Hans-Otto Baral,
07-02-2010 15:08
Re:Discinella sp?
Thanks! I suspect that the more rare biguttulate spores are those living spores which would be seen inside a living ascus, and that those with elongate LBs arise from artificial fusion.
I wonder about the generic difference to Discinella which to my opinion has very similar characters concerning the type species, D. boudieri: (1) Ascospores are exactly the same. (2) Paraphyses are apically of the same manner, also hemiamyloidity is the same though week in boudieri. A gel on the outside of the excipulum is present. So I can see hardly any differences. I cannot find Discinella mentioned in the paper by Korf, Singh & Tewari 1978, Mycotaxon VII: 141f. (http://www.cybertruffle.org.uk/cyberliber/).
Zotto
I wonder about the generic difference to Discinella which to my opinion has very similar characters concerning the type species, D. boudieri: (1) Ascospores are exactly the same. (2) Paraphyses are apically of the same manner, also hemiamyloidity is the same though week in boudieri. A gel on the outside of the excipulum is present. So I can see hardly any differences. I cannot find Discinella mentioned in the paper by Korf, Singh & Tewari 1978, Mycotaxon VII: 141f. (http://www.cybertruffle.org.uk/cyberliber/).
Zotto
Richard Korf,
07-02-2010 15:38
Re:Discinella sp?
Interesting comments Zotto. What I know of Discinella boudieri is solely from the literature. I never saw the gel mentioned in that species. The paraphysis apices in this material is cetainly what I saw in describing G. variispora. The colors he described coincide exactly with our observations, so I feel sure this is the same specie, and perhaps then a later synonym of D. boudieri. The variability in spore size: is that also a feature of D. boudieri? I did make an error in replying first. It is not widespread on Tenerife.The huge number of collections were all within 4 km of each other. I'd be interested to know where he found it in Tenerife compared to where we collected it. Could be elsewhere, as we did find it on one other Canary Island, Gomera.
Dick
Dick
Miguel Ángel Ribes,
07-02-2010 17:20
Re:Discinella sp?
The first species which I thought was D. boudieri, or at least one Discinella, I wrote it in the scheme. Indeed micro is almost equal to this collection. The color of the species is the only character not consistent. Here is a previous file of D. boudieri confirmed by you, Zotto (when I still used Melzer, instead of IKI, so I did not tested IKI with and without KOH)
http://www.micobotanicajaen.com/Revista/Articulos/MARibesR/Tenerife003/Discinella% 20boudieri% 20,241,206% 2016.pdf
I have only this asci photo in water.
My collection, Richard, is from La Caldera, Aguamansa, more than 40 km away from your collections in the area of Anaga-Las Mercedes.
http://www.micobotanicajaen.com/Revista/Articulos/MARibesR/Tenerife003/Discinella% 20boudieri% 20,241,206% 2016.pdf
I have only this asci photo in water.
My collection, Richard, is from La Caldera, Aguamansa, more than 40 km away from your collections in the area of Anaga-Las Mercedes.
Richard Korf,
07-02-2010 17:44
Re:Discinella sp?
We did collect at La Caldera, but did not see it there. The date of collection is when we were in Tenerife several times. I am at home and do not have the Boudier Icones plates at hand. He illustrated the species and a variety. Considering how much I worked on those volumes I find it hard to believe I described as new something he illustrated! he was a very careful illustrator, after all. Being wrong is not a new discovery for me.
Dick
Dick
Hans-Otto Baral,
07-02-2010 18:45
Re:Discinella sp?
Here is file 445_Boudier_Discinella boudieri.jpg which is on the DVD
I doubt a bit in Boudiers oil drops which are smaller than I know from what I believe is D. boudieri.
I doubt a bit in Boudiers oil drops which are smaller than I know from what I believe is D. boudieri.
10282.jpg
Hans-Otto Baral,
07-02-2010 18:46
10283.jpg
Hans-Otto Baral,
07-02-2010 18:49
Re:Discinella sp?
Here is a spore image (vital state) made by Patrice Tanchaud in W-France. The spores loo quite equal-sized, and I do not remember a variability in my finds as well.
Richard Korf,
07-02-2010 20:14
Re:Discinella sp?
Thanks, Zotto, and Miguel, of course,
I believe that the lack of variability in spore size and for me the dissimilar apical paraphysis deformation in the species I described make the synonymy with Discinella boudieri unlikely. But for sure it does not address the question as to whether I made an error in proposing a new genus. I see nothing in the Boudier plate about the apothecial structure, and I have been shown to have been too concerned at times about the gel layers as being a critical character, but I'd love to see Quélet's original material to be sure about the genus. Maybe the text volume has more information. which I'll check. Maybe I'll just have to transfer my species to Discinella.
Keep me in the loop.
Dick
I believe that the lack of variability in spore size and for me the dissimilar apical paraphysis deformation in the species I described make the synonymy with Discinella boudieri unlikely. But for sure it does not address the question as to whether I made an error in proposing a new genus. I see nothing in the Boudier plate about the apothecial structure, and I have been shown to have been too concerned at times about the gel layers as being a critical character, but I'd love to see Quélet's original material to be sure about the genus. Maybe the text volume has more information. which I'll check. Maybe I'll just have to transfer my species to Discinella.
Keep me in the loop.
Dick
Richard Korf,
07-02-2010 20:14
Re:Discinella sp?
Thanks, Zotto, and Miguel, of course,
I believe that the lack of variability in spore size and for me the dissimilar apical paraphysis deformation in the species I described make the synonymy with Discinella boudieri unlikely. But for sure it does not address the question as to whether I made an error in proposing a new genus. I see nothing in the Boudier plate about the apothecial structure, and I have been shown to have been too concerned at times about the gel layers as being a critical character, but I'd love to see Quélet's original material to be sure about the genus. Maybe the text volume has more information. which I'll check. Maybe I'll just have to transfer my species to Discinella.
Keep me in the loop.
Dick
I believe that the lack of variability in spore size and for me the dissimilar apical paraphysis deformation in the species I described make the synonymy with Discinella boudieri unlikely. But for sure it does not address the question as to whether I made an error in proposing a new genus. I see nothing in the Boudier plate about the apothecial structure, and I have been shown to have been too concerned at times about the gel layers as being a critical character, but I'd love to see Quélet's original material to be sure about the genus. Maybe the text volume has more information. which I'll check. Maybe I'll just have to transfer my species to Discinella.
Keep me in the loop.
Dick
Richard Korf,
07-02-2010 20:15
Re:Discinella sp?
Thanks, Zotto, and Miguel, of course,
I believe that the lack of variability in spore size and for me the dissimilar apical paraphysis deformation in the species I described make the synonymy with Discinella boudieri unlikely. But for sure it does not address the question as to whether I made an error in proposing a new genus. I see nothing in the Boudier plate about the apothecial structure, and I have been shown to have been too concerned at times about the gel layers as being a critical character, but I'd love to see Quélet's original material to be sure about the genus. Maybe the text volume has more information. which I'll check. Maybe I'll just have to transfer my species to Discinella.
Keep me in the loop.
Dick
I believe that the lack of variability in spore size and for me the dissimilar apical paraphysis deformation in the species I described make the synonymy with Discinella boudieri unlikely. But for sure it does not address the question as to whether I made an error in proposing a new genus. I see nothing in the Boudier plate about the apothecial structure, and I have been shown to have been too concerned at times about the gel layers as being a critical character, but I'd love to see Quélet's original material to be sure about the genus. Maybe the text volume has more information. which I'll check. Maybe I'll just have to transfer my species to Discinella.
Keep me in the loop.
Dick
Richard Korf,
07-02-2010 20:15
Re:Discinella sp?
Thanks, Zotto, and Miguel, of course,
I believe that the lack of variability in spore size and for me the dissimilar apical paraphysis deformation in the species I described make the synonymy with Discinella boudieri unlikely. But for sure it does not address the question as to whether I made an error in proposing a new genus. I see nothing in the Boudier plate about the apothecial structure, and I have been shown to have been too concerned at times about the gel layers as being a critical character, but I'd love to see Quélet's original material to be sure about the genus. Maybe the text volume has more information. which I'll check. Maybe I'll just have to transfer my species to Discinella.
Keep me in the loop.
Dick
I believe that the lack of variability in spore size and for me the dissimilar apical paraphysis deformation in the species I described make the synonymy with Discinella boudieri unlikely. But for sure it does not address the question as to whether I made an error in proposing a new genus. I see nothing in the Boudier plate about the apothecial structure, and I have been shown to have been too concerned at times about the gel layers as being a critical character, but I'd love to see Quélet's original material to be sure about the genus. Maybe the text volume has more information. which I'll check. Maybe I'll just have to transfer my species to Discinella.
Keep me in the loop.
Dick
Richard Korf,
07-02-2010 20:15
Re:Discinella sp?
Thanks, Zotto, and Miguel, of course,
I believe that the lack of variability in spore size and for me the dissimilar apical paraphysis deformation in the species I described make the synonymy with Discinella boudieri unlikely. But for sure it does not address the question as to whether I made an error in proposing a new genus. I see nothing in the Boudier plate about the apothecial structure, and I have been shown to have been too concerned at times about the gel layers as being a critical character, but I'd love to see Quélet's original material to be sure about the genus. Maybe the text volume has more information. which I'll check. Maybe I'll just have to transfer my species to Discinella.
Keep me in the loop.
Dick
P.S> Obviously DNA comparisons would be great!
I believe that the lack of variability in spore size and for me the dissimilar apical paraphysis deformation in the species I described make the synonymy with Discinella boudieri unlikely. But for sure it does not address the question as to whether I made an error in proposing a new genus. I see nothing in the Boudier plate about the apothecial structure, and I have been shown to have been too concerned at times about the gel layers as being a critical character, but I'd love to see Quélet's original material to be sure about the genus. Maybe the text volume has more information. which I'll check. Maybe I'll just have to transfer my species to Discinella.
Keep me in the loop.
Dick
P.S> Obviously DNA comparisons would be great!
Hans-Otto Baral,
07-02-2010 21:12
Re:Discinella sp?
In GenBank I see only Discinella terrestris as representative of the genus (and no Geocoryne). On this species and a variety of it I plan a paper with Ricardo Galán since perhaps 10 years. This is more likely to belong close to Phaeohelotium, while D. boudieri I suspect to be more related to Leotia.
A Blast of the sequence of D. terrestris gives little information, however. At least some resemblance to Cyathicula/Crocicreas and Cudoniella clavus is visible, apart from many unidentified strains.
The spores of D. boudieri vary indeed quite considerably in length, less so in width, in my notes. But they are distinctly narrower than in Geocoryne variispora, so I also think there exist two species. There is a ca. 200-250 µm thick gel layer on the outside of the excipulum in my material. Obviously the apical ring is much thinner and less reactive in D. boudieri as we can see on Miguel's mice photos.
Zotto
A Blast of the sequence of D. terrestris gives little information, however. At least some resemblance to Cyathicula/Crocicreas and Cudoniella clavus is visible, apart from many unidentified strains.
The spores of D. boudieri vary indeed quite considerably in length, less so in width, in my notes. But they are distinctly narrower than in Geocoryne variispora, so I also think there exist two species. There is a ca. 200-250 µm thick gel layer on the outside of the excipulum in my material. Obviously the apical ring is much thinner and less reactive in D. boudieri as we can see on Miguel's mice photos.
Zotto
Richard Korf,
07-02-2010 21:58
Re:Discinella sp?
Hi, again, Zotto,
I suppose what you have identified as D. boudieri is congeneric with Geocoryne variispora. I guess the question that remains is how certain are you that what you have worked on is Quélet's species? Or D. terrestris, for that matter? It doesn't surprise me that we don't have any molecular data on Geocoryne, because we lack so much DNA study for inopercs. I'd just like to correct my mistakes as soon as I know about them. I'm still uncertain about this case. It is so common in Dec/Jan in Tenerife (the DOMINANT largish soil inhabiting sp., easily mistaken for a Peziza) that I'm sure Esperanza Beltrán Tejera or her students could get us material to give to someone doing molecular studies.
Dick
I suppose what you have identified as D. boudieri is congeneric with Geocoryne variispora. I guess the question that remains is how certain are you that what you have worked on is Quélet's species? Or D. terrestris, for that matter? It doesn't surprise me that we don't have any molecular data on Geocoryne, because we lack so much DNA study for inopercs. I'd just like to correct my mistakes as soon as I know about them. I'm still uncertain about this case. It is so common in Dec/Jan in Tenerife (the DOMINANT largish soil inhabiting sp., easily mistaken for a Peziza) that I'm sure Esperanza Beltrán Tejera or her students could get us material to give to someone doing molecular studies.
Dick
Hans-Otto Baral,
07-02-2010 22:11
Re:Discinella sp?
I wrote to Luis, a student of Esperanza, to look in this forum, but I fear he needs first to be registered.
I think the identity with Boudier's plates is far from dubious. But isn't it probable that Quélet was in contact Boudier concerning material for painting? This was at least the case with Orbilia/Hyalinia crystallina.
Zotto
I think the identity with Boudier's plates is far from dubious. But isn't it probable that Quélet was in contact Boudier concerning material for painting? This was at least the case with Orbilia/Hyalinia crystallina.
Zotto
Miguel Ángel Ribes,
07-02-2010 22:51
Re:Discinella sp?
I think Luis belongs to the forum, but I am not sure. I could sent you some material of my 3 previous Discinella boudieri records from Cruz del Carmen (2004, 2005 and 2006) and this new Discinella / Geocoryne from La Caldera (2008) to compare, if you consider it neccesary or important.
Miguel
Miguel
Miguel Ángel Ribes,
07-02-2010 22:51
Re:Discinella sp?
I think Luis belongs to the forum, but I am not sure. I could sent you some material of my 3 previous Discinella boudieri records from Cruz del Carmen (2004, 2005 and 2006) and this new Discinella / Geocoryne from La Caldera (2008) to compare, if you consider it neccesary or important.
Miguel
Miguel
Richard Korf,
07-02-2010 23:59
Re:Discinella sp?
Dear Miguel and Zotto,
I don't know whether the offer to send material was directed to Zotto or to me. I may ask for it later. In reply to Zotto, i thought I had replied about Patouillard and Boudier but it may have gotten lost in cyberspace as I don't see it posted. Yes, both Boudier's herbarium and Quélet's are in PC, but i don't know whether these are easily loaned these days or not, nor to whom to apply. In any case, I do have some correcting to do of the Discinella entries on Index Fungorum website.
I'll look at my books in my new lab. hopefully this coming week.
Dick
I don't know whether the offer to send material was directed to Zotto or to me. I may ask for it later. In reply to Zotto, i thought I had replied about Patouillard and Boudier but it may have gotten lost in cyberspace as I don't see it posted. Yes, both Boudier's herbarium and Quélet's are in PC, but i don't know whether these are easily loaned these days or not, nor to whom to apply. In any case, I do have some correcting to do of the Discinella entries on Index Fungorum website.
I'll look at my books in my new lab. hopefully this coming week.
Dick
Miguel Ángel Ribes,
08-02-2010 00:25
Re:Discinella sp?
Sorry Richard, to either or both, which may make the study of DNA
Miguel
Miguel
Richard Korf,
08-02-2010 04:15
Re:Discinella sp?
Well, Miguel, that is one thing I cannot do. I don't know that Zotto can either. But one of us might know somebody who can. Ideally that person would like fresh material. Sorry about that. I'm really too far away from that to be of much help. I will be 85 in May, too set in my ways.
Dick
Dick