4.6 Article

New Species and New Records of Otidea from China Based on Molecular and Morphological Data

Journal

JOURNAL OF FUNGI
Volume 8, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jof8030272

Keywords

Ascomycota; Pyronemataceae; phylogeny; seven new taxa; taxonomy

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31750001]
  2. Beijing Natural Science Foundation [5172003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the species diversity and phylogenetic relationships of Otidea in northern China. Through morphological and phylogenetic analyses, a total of 16 species were identified, including seven new species. Two species were reported for the first time in China, and the occurrence of three species was confirmed by molecular data.
Species of genus Otidea previously reported in China are mainly distributed in the northeast, northwest and southwest regions of China, but the species diversity of Otidea in north China is not very clear. In this study, newly collected Otidea specimens from northern China and some herbarium specimens deposited in three important Chinese fungus herbaria (HMAS, HKAS, HMJAU) were studied using morphological and phylogenetic methods. The internal transcribed spacers of the nrDNA (ITS), the nrRNA 28S subunit (nrLSU), the translation elongation factor 1-alpha (tef1-alpha), and the second largest subunit of RNA polymerase II (rpb2), were employed to elucidate the phylogenetic relationships between Otidea species. Results identified 16 species of Otidea, of which seven new species are described, namely O. aspera, O. cupulata, O. filiformis, O. khakicolorata, O. parvula, O. plicara and O. purpureobrunnea. Otidea bicolor and O. pruinosa are synonymized as O. subpurpurea. Two species, O. mirabilis and O. nannfeldtii, are being reported for the first time in China. The occurrence of O. bufonia, O. leporina and O. onotica are confirmed by molecular data in China.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available