4.3 Review

Reviewing the taxonomy of Podaxis: Opportunities for understanding extreme fungal lifestyles

Journal

FUNGAL BIOLOGY
Volume 123, Issue 3, Pages 183-187

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.funbio.2019.01.001

Keywords

Basidiomycota; Drought; Extremophile; Low water activity; Termite

Categories

Funding

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG) [CRC1127, BE 4799/3-1]
  2. Daimler and Benz Foundation
  3. Villum Foundation [10122]
  4. Independent Research Fund Denmark [DFF - 7014-00178]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There are few environments more hostile and species-poor than deserts and the mounds of Nasutitermitinae termites. However, despite the very different adaptations required to survive in such extreme and different environments, the fungal genus Podaxis is capable of surviving in both: where few other fungi are reported to grow. Despite their prominence in the landscape and their frequent documentation by early explorers, there has been relatively little research into the genus. Originally described by Linnaeus in 1771, in the early 20th Century, the then similar to 25 species of Podaxis were almost entirely reduced into one species: Podaxis pistilloris. Since this reduction, several new species of Podaxis have been described but without consideration of older descriptions. This has resulted in 44 recognised species names in Index Fungorum but the vast majority of studies and fungarium specimens still refer to P. pistillaris. Studies of Podaxis' extremely different lifestyles is hampered by its effective reduction to a single-species genus. Here we examine the history of the taxonomy of Podaxis before focusing on its extreme lifestyles. From this, we consider how the muddled taxonomy of Podaxis may be resolved; opening up further avenues for future research into this enigmatic fungal genus. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of British Mycological Society.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available