16-09-2025 12:53
Philippe PELLICIERPézizes de 1-4 mm, brun grisâtres, sur les capsu
19-09-2025 23:55
Jorge HernanzEstoy buscando y no encuentro el siguiente artÃcu
17-09-2025 19:43
Philippe PELLICIERSur branche morte de Mélèze. Les ascospores sphÃ
18-09-2025 16:14
Bernard Declercq
Hello,I am looking for a copy of following paper:H
17-09-2025 10:50
Heather MerryleesHi there!I am hoping for any advice on the identif
11-09-2025 16:57
Jason Karakehian
Our revision of Marthamycetales (Leotiomycetes) is
Sclerotinia sclerotiorum vs. "binucleospora"
Viktorie Halasu,
25-03-2017 11:55
Hello forum,I'd like to ask, what differences are there between S. sclerotiorum and the other binucleate species that grows among Ficaria? So far, after reading the topics here, I know only about somewhat bigger size of apothecia.
If I have a following combination of characters, is it possible to decide for one of these species?
- apothecia up to 18 mm wide, growing solitarily or in clusters from elongated sclerotia up to 16 × 4-7 mm big
- mostly Ficaria sp. and a few specimens of Gagea sp. aroundÂ
- spores binucleate with groups of 1-3 small droplets at the poles, * (11,5) 12,2-14 (14,9) × (5,8) 6-6,7 (7) um, Q = 1,9-2,3
Thank you for any advice.
ViktorieÂ
Hans-Otto Baral,
25-03-2017 12:01
Re : Sclerotinia sclerotiorum vs. "binucleospora"
Well, S. sclerotiorum has 4-nucleate spores and is not known to me with such big apothecia. You obviously have S. "binucleospora" , which is frequently confused with S. tuberosa.
Viktorie Halasu,
25-03-2017 12:12
Re : Sclerotinia sclerotiorum vs. "binucleospora"
Thank you. So, If I understand correctly, tuberosa is distinguished by 2-4-nucleate spores, but otherwise has overlapping spore size, and S. sclerotiorum should have a bit narrower spores (thus bigger Q), right?
But Kohn writes binucleate spores for S. sclerotiorum. Did the current concept of S. sclerotiorum change to tetranucleate spores (and perhaps a more specific host)?
But Kohn writes binucleate spores for S. sclerotiorum. Did the current concept of S. sclerotiorum change to tetranucleate spores (and perhaps a more specific host)?
Hans-Otto Baral,
25-03-2017 15:44
Re : Sclerotinia sclerotiorum vs. "binucleospora"
oh sorry, you are right, sclerotiorum is binucleate, I remembered wrong. The name S. sclerotiorum was a previous idea for S. binucleospora, but the molecular data tell a different story. Spore size might be valuable too, but I would need to look up that. S. tuberosa is rather consistently 4-nucleate.
Viktorie Halasu,
26-03-2017 10:11
Re : Sclerotinia sclerotiorum vs. "binucleospora"
Sorry, I was just trying to understand the differences between those three. Thank you.
Mlcoch Patrik,
26-03-2017 19:57
Re : Sclerotinia sclerotiorum vs. "binucleospora"
Your find can be Sclerotinia ficariae, which can be sometime synonymy with S. sclerotiorum. S. ficariae is parasite on the Ficaria verna, S. sclerotiorum used to be smaller and have smaller spore (9 - 13 x 4 - 5,5 um, S. ficariae 12 - 14,5/15/ x 5,5 - 7,5 um - according to my find).
Viktorie Halasu,
26-03-2017 20:39
Re : Sclerotinia sclerotiorum vs. "binucleospora"
Hi, Patrik,
Zotto wrote in another thread that S. ficariae was described with apothecia up to 10 mm wide and that this is one of the reasons he considers it a synonym of S. sclerotiorum:Â http://ascofrance.fr/search_forum/18411 . Also L.Kohn in her monograph put S. ficariae as synonym of S. sclerotiorum (and she studied the holotypes of both).Â
You collection has binucleate spores as well?
Zotto wrote in another thread that S. ficariae was described with apothecia up to 10 mm wide and that this is one of the reasons he considers it a synonym of S. sclerotiorum:Â http://ascofrance.fr/search_forum/18411 . Also L.Kohn in her monograph put S. ficariae as synonym of S. sclerotiorum (and she studied the holotypes of both).Â
You collection has binucleate spores as well?
Hans-Otto Baral,
26-03-2017 21:11
Re : Sclerotinia sclerotiorum vs. "binucleospora"
The problem is that Kohn would place binucleospora also in synonymy with sclerotiorum, this I have in mind when I was in contact with her long ago.Â
So S. ficariae remains dubious in this respect. What I can say for sure is that available molecular data show that S. tuberosa (4 nucleate) and S. sclerotiorum (2-nucleate) are only about 2.5% distant in the ITS, but S. binucleata about 5% from both. Strange, isn't it?
Zotto
So S. ficariae remains dubious in this respect. What I can say for sure is that available molecular data show that S. tuberosa (4 nucleate) and S. sclerotiorum (2-nucleate) are only about 2.5% distant in the ITS, but S. binucleata about 5% from both. Strange, isn't it?
Zotto