Hamatocanthoscyphaceae

Fungalpedia – Note 3021, Hamatocanthoscyphaceae

Hamatocanthoscyphaceae. Ekanayaka & KD. Hyde.

Citation when using this data: Wenping Wu & Yongzhao Diao. 2023– Fungalpedia.

Index Fungorum, Facesoffungi, MycoBank, GenBank

Classification: Helotiales, Leotiomycetidae, Leotiomycetes, Pezizomycotina, Ascomycota, Fungi

Ecology/substrate/host: Saprobe on dead plant materials.

Geographical distribution: Widely distributed.

Description and illustration: Ekanayaka et al. (2019).

Accepted chalara-like fungal genera: Brachyalara, Catenulifera, Constrictochalara, Cylindrochalara, Infundichalara, Stipitochalara and Xenochalara.

Notes: Hamatocanthoscyphaceae was a recently established family for those genera included in Han’s Clade 1 and the included genera are Brachyalara, Chalara, Ciliolarina, Curviclavula, Gremmenia, Hamatocanthoscypha, Hyalodendriella, Infundichalara, Microscypha, Pseudohelotium, Xenochalara and Xenopolyscytalum (Han et al. 2014; Ekanayaka et al. 2019). In the phylogenetic analyses based on 15 concatenated sequences of Leotiomycetes, separation of Hamatocanthoscyphaceae as a different family from Pezizellaceae was not supported, thus were treated as members of Pezizellaceae (Johnston et al. 2019). However, the family Pezizellaceae was split into three clades in the ITS tree, and one of these clades was equal to Hamatocanthoscyphaceae (Johnston et al. 2019). Phylogenetic analyses with 4 different datasets in this study supported separation of Hamatocanthoscyphaceae from Pezizellaceae as two different families. In the phylogenetic trees (Wenping and Yongzhao 2023), thirteen chalara-like fungi clustered in the strongly supported Hamatocanthoscyphaceae clade. These species were known as Brachyalara straiminea, Chalara hyalocuspica, C. constricta, C. ellisii, C. holubovae, C. longipes, C. piceae-abietis, C. recta, Hamatocanthoscypha podocarpi, Infundichalara microchona, I. minuta, Xenochalara juniperi, and one undescribed chalara-like species (Coetsee et al. 2000; Réblová and Gams 2011; Ekanayaka et al. 2019; Johnston et al. 2019; Crous et al. 2020). Based on morphological and phylogenetic analyses in this study, five monophyletic genera were proposed to accommodate these chalaralike fungi (Wenping and Yongzhao 2023). Constrictochalara W.P. Wu & Y.Z. Diao was established for Chalara constricta, C. ellisii, C. holubovae, Hamatocanthoscypha podocarpi and one undescribed species. The new genus is characterized by short conidiophores consisting of 1–2-celled basal stalk and a terminal phialide with sharptransition from venter to collarette, obvious constriction and darker between venters and collarettes, andhyaline, aseptate, clavate, subcylindrical or cylindrical conidia (Nag Raj and Kendrick 1975; Koukol 2011). Cylindrochalara W.P. Wu & Y.Z. Diao was introduced for C. hyalocuspica. In the phylogenetic tree, C. hyalocuspica and Infundichalara microchona (the type species of the genus) clustered together as a distinct clade. The two genera can be distinguished by shape of collarette and conidia. In I. microchona, the collarettes are typical funnel-shaped, and the conidia are aseptate and clavate; while in C. hyalocuspica, the collarettes and the conidia are cylindrical. Stipitochalara W.P. Wu & Y.Z. Diao was established as new genus for Chalara longipes, C. piceae–abietis and C. recta. The genus is characterized by multi-septate conidiophores, terminal phialides with abrupt transition from venter to collarette, and hyaline, aseptate, cylindrical conidia without basal frill. Two existing chalara-like genera were accepted, Infundichalara for I. microchona and I. minuta; and Xenochalara for X. juniperi, a monotypic genus. The two species of Infundichalara were morphologicallysimilar, but phylogenetically did not cluster together as one clade. The phylogenetic analyses in this study also showed that some genera in family Hamatocanthoscyphaceae were polyphyletic and generic delimitation were problematic (Wenping and Yongzhao 2023). Four species of Hamatocanthoscypha scattered in four different clades: the type species H. laricionis was clustered together with Xenochalara juniperi as a strongly supported clade; the chalara-like species H. podocarpi was clustered together with three other chalara-like species (Constrictochalara clavatospora, C. constricta, C. ellisii and C. holubovae) H. straminella and H. uncipila); H. straminella and Xenopolyscytalum pinea clustered as one strongly supported clade; and H. uncipila and Infundichalara minuta formed a distinct clade but without strong support. For the genus Microscypha, in the strongly supported clade with two Microscypha species, two other species Gremmenia infestans and Pezizella chrysostigma (the type species) were also included; while Microscypha cajaniensis formed a separate branch distinct from other two species. Future revisions for those genera are needed to clarify their phylogenetic relationship towards establishing the monophyletic generic concepts.