A review of Hyphodiscaceae.

In a recently published classification scheme for Leotiomycetes, the new family Hyphodiscaceae was erected; unfortunately, this study was rife with phylogenetic misinterpretations and hampered by a poor understanding of this group of fungi. This manifested in the form of an undiagnostic familial description, an erroneous familial circumscription, and the redescription of the type species of an included genus as a new species in a different genus. The present work corrects these errors by incorporating new molecular data from this group into phylogenetic analyses and examining the morphological features of the included taxa. An emended description of Hyphodiscaceae is provided, notes and descriptions of the included genera are supplied, and keys to genera and species in Hyphodiscaceae are supplied. Microscypha cajaniensis is combined in Hyphodiscus, and Scolecolachnum nigricans is a taxonomic synonym of Fuscolachnum pteridis. Future work in this family should focus on increasing phylogenetic sampling outside of Eurasia and better characterising described species to help resolve outstanding issues. Citation: Quijada L, Baral HO, Johnston PR, Pärtel K, Mitchell JK, Hosoya T, Madrid H, Kosonen T, Helleman S, Rubio E, Stöckli E, Huhtinen S, Pfister DH (2022). A review of Hyphodiscaceae. Studies in Mycology 103: 59-85. doi: 10.3114/sim.2022.103.03.

Taxonomy and systematics of Hyaloscyphaceae and Arachnopezizaceae.

The circumscription and composition of the Hyaloscyphaceae are controversial and based on poorly sampled or unsupported phylogenies. The generic limits within the hyaloscyphoid fungi are also very poorly understood. To address this issue, a robust five-gene Bayesian phylogeny (LSU, RPB1, RPB2, TEF-1α, mtSSU; 5521 bp) with a focus on the core group of Hyaloscyphaceae and Arachnopezizaceae is presented here, with comparative morphological and histochemical characters. A wide representative sampling of Hyaloscypha supports it as monophyletic and shows H. aureliella (subgenus Eupezizella) to be a strongly supported sister taxon. Reinforced by distinguishing morphological features, Eupezizella is here recognised as a separate genus, comprising E. aureliella, E. britannica, E. roseoguttata and E. nipponica (previously treated in Hyaloscypha). In a sister group to the Hyaloscypha-Eupezizella clade a new genus, Mimicoscypha, is created for three seldom collected and poorly understood species, M. lacrimiformis, M. mimica (nom. nov.) and M. paludosa, previously treated in Phialina, Hyaloscypha and Eriopezia, respectively. The Arachnopezizaceae is polyphyletic, because Arachnoscypha forms a monophyletic group with Polydesmia pruinosa, distant to Arachnopeziza and Eriopezia; in addition, Arachnopeziza variepilosa represents an early diverging lineage in Hyaloscyphaceae s.str. The hyphae originating from the base of the apothecia in Arachnoscypha are considered anchoring hyphae (vs a subiculum) and Arachnoscypha is excluded from Arachnopezizaceae. A new genus, Resinoscypha, is established to accommodate Arachnopeziza variepilosa and A. monoseptata, originally described in Protounguicularia. Mimicoscypha and Resinoscypha are distinguished among hyaloscyphoid fungi by long tapering multiseptate hairs that are not dextrinoid or glassy, in combination with ectal excipulum cells with deep amyloid nodules. Unique to Resinoscypha is cyanophilous resinous content in the hairs concentrated at the apex and septa. Small intensely amyloid nodules in the hairs are furthermore characteristic for Resinoscypha and Eupezizella. To elucidate species limits and diversity in Arachnopeziza, mainly from Northern Europe, we applied genealogical concordance phylogenetic species recognition (GCPSR) using analyses of individual datasets (ITS, LSU, RPB1, RPB2, TEF-1α) and comparative morphology. Eight species were identified as highly supported and reciprocally monophyletic. Four of these are newly discovered species, with two formally described here, viz. A. estonica and A. ptilidiophila. In addition, Belonium sphagnisedum, which completely lacks prominent hairs, is here combined in Arachnopeziza, widening the concept of the genus. Numerous publicly available sequences named A. aurata represent A. delicatula and the confusion between these two species is clarified. An additional four singletons are considered to be distinct species, because they were genetically divergent from their sisters. A highly supported five-gene phylogeny of Arachnopezizaceae identified four major clades in Arachnopeziza, with Eriopezia as a sister group. Two of the clades include species with a strong connection to bryophytes; the third clade includes species growing on bulky woody substrates and with pigmented exudates on the hairs; and the fourth clade species with hyaline exudates growing on both bryophytes and hardwood. A morphological account is given of the composition of Hyaloscyphaceae and Arachnopezizaceae, including new observations on vital and histochemical characters. Citation: Kosonen T, Huhtinen S, Hansen K. 2021. Taxonomy and systematics of Hyaloscyphaceae and Arachnopezizaceae. Persoonia 46: 26-62. https://doi.org/10.3767/persoonia.2021.46.02.

Phylogenetic origins and family classification of typhuloid fungi, with emphasis on Ceratellopsis, Macrotyphula and Typhula (Basidiomycota).

Typhuloid fungi are a very poorly known group of tiny clavarioid homobasidiomycetes. The phylogenetic position and family classification of the genera targeted here, Ceratellopsis, Macrotyphula, Pterula sensu lato and Typhula, are controversial and based on unresolved phylogenies. Our six-gene phylogeny with an expanded taxon sampling shows that typhuloid fungi evolved at least twice in the Agaricales (Pleurotineae, Clavariineae) and once in the Hymenochaetales. Macrotyphula, Pterulicium and Typhula are nested within the Pleurotineae. The type of Typhula (1818) and Sclerotium (1790), T. phacorrhiza and S. complanatum (synonym T. phacorrhiza), are encompassed in the Macrotyphula clade that is distantly related to a monophyletic group formed by species usually assigned to Typhula. Thus, the correct name for Macrotyphula (1972) and Typhula is Sclerotium and all Typhula species but those in the T. phacorrhiza group need to be transferred to Pistillaria (1821). To avoid undesirable nomenclatural changes, we suggest to conserve Typhula with T. incarnata as type. Clavariaceae is supported as a separate, early diverging lineage within Agaricales, with Hygrophoraceae as a successive sister taxon to the rest of the Agaricales. Ceratellopsis s. auct. is polyphyletic because C. acuminata nests in Clavariaceae and C. sagittiformis in the Hymenochaetales. Ceratellopsis is found to be an earlier name for Pterulicium, because the type, C. queletii, represents Pterulicium gracile (synonym Pterula gracilis), deeply nested in the Pterulicium clade. To avoid re-combining a large number of names in Ceratellopsis we suggest to conserve it with C. acuminata as type. The new genus Bryopistillaria is created to include C. sagittiformis. The families Sarcomyxaceae and Phyllotopsidaceae, and the suborder Clavariineae, are described as new. Six new combinations are proposed and 15 names typified.

Pindara revisited - evolution and generic limits in Helvellaceae.

The Helvellaceae encompasses taxa that produce some of the most elaborate apothecial forms, as well as hypogeous ascomata, in the class Pezizomycetes (Ascomycota). While the circumscription of the Helvellaceae is clarified, evolutionary relationships and generic limits within the family are debatable. A robust phylogeny of the Helvellaceae, using an increased number of molecular characters from the LSU rDNA, RPB2 and EF-1α gene regions (4 299 bp) and a wide representative sampling, is presented here. Helvella s.lat. was shown to be polyphyletic, because Helvella aestivalis formed a distant monophyletic group with hypogeous species of Balsamia and Barssia. All other species of Helvella formed a large group with the enigmatic Pindara (/Helvella) terrestris nested within it. The ear-shaped Wynnella constitutes an independent lineage and is recognised with the earlier name Midotis. The clade of the hypogeous Balsamia and Barssia, and H. aestivalis is coherent in the three-gene phylogeny, and considering the lack of phenotypic characters to distinguish Barssia from Balsamia we combine species of Barssia, along with H. aestivalis, in Balsamia. The closed/tuberiform, sparassoid H. astieri is shown to be a synonym of H. lactea; it is merely an incidental folded form of the saddle-shaped H. lactea. Pindara is a sister group to a restricted Helvella, i.e., excluding the /leucomelaena lineage, on a notably long branch. We recognise Pindara as a separate genus and erect a new genus Dissingia for the /leucomelaena lineage, viz. H. confusa, H. crassitunicata, H. leucomelaena and H. oblongispora. Dissingia is supported by asci that arise from simple septa; all other species of Helvellaceae have asci that arise from croziers, with one exception being the /alpina-corium lineage of Helvella s.str. This suggests ascus development from croziers is the ancestral state for the Helvellaceae and that ascus development from simple septa has evolved at least twice in the family. Our phylogeny does not determine the evolutionary relationships within Helvella s.str., but it is most parsimonious to infer that the ancestor of the helvelloids produced subsessile or shortly stipitate, cup-shaped apothecia. This shape has been maintained in some lineages of Helvella s.str. The type species of Underwoodia, Underwoodia columnaris, is a sister lineage to the rest of the Helvellaceae.