Pleosporales » Pleosporaceae » Comoclathris

Comoclathris rosigena

Comoclathris rosigena Wanas., Camporesi, E.B.G. Jones & K.D. Hyde, in Wanasinghe et al., Fungal Diversity: 10.1007/s13225-018-0395-7, [153] (2018)

Index Fungorum number: IF 554206; Facesofungi number: FoF 04045

Etymology: The specific epithet reflects the host genus Rosa.

Holotype: MFLU 16-0229.

Saprobic on dead spines of Rosa canina. Sexual state: Ascomata 180–220 μm high, 300–400 μm diam. (x̄ = 197.4 × 350.8 μm, n = 5), immersed to erumpent, globose or subglobose, dark brown to black, coriaceous. Peridium 8–15 μm wide at the base, 20–30 μm wide at the sides, comprising reddish to dark brown cells of textura angularis. Hamathecium comprising numerous, 3–5 μm wide, filamentous, branched, septate, pseudoparaphyses. Asci 150–180 × 45–60 μm (x̄ = 166.8 × 52.1 μm, n = 30), 8- spored, bitunicate, fissitunicate, cylindric-clavate to clavate, pedicellate, thick-walled at the apex, with minute ocular chamber. Ascospores 40–60 × 16–24 μm (x̄ = 51.7 × 21.2 μm, n = 50), overlapping biseriate, mostly ellipsoidal, muriform, 5–7-transversely septate, with 1-vertical septum, slightly constricted at the middle septum, initially hyaline to pale yellow, becoming pale brown at maturity, conical at upper end and rounded at lower end, surrounded by a thick mucilaginous sheath. Asexual morph: Undetermined.

Material examined: ITALY, Province of Forli-Cesena [FC], Campigna, Santa Sofia, on dead aerial spines of Rosa canina L. (Rosaceae), 6 October 2014, Erio Camporesi IT 2153 (MFLU 16-0229, holotype).

GenBank Numbers: ITS: MG828879, LSU: MG828995, SSU: MG829106, RPB2: MG829252.

Notes: Comoclathris rosigena is introduced here as a new species which was collected in Italy from Rosa canina. In our phylogenetic analyses Comoclathris rosigena is closely related to C. italica, C. permunda and C. spartii which were also collected from same country. However, their ascospores differ as Comoclathris rosigena (>40 lm) has comparatively larger ascospores than them (<40 lm). We did not obtain an isolate and therefore we isolated DNA directly from the fruiting bodies.