4.6 Article

Hidden diversity of marine borderline lichens and a new order of fungi: Collemopsidiales (Dothideomyceta)

期刊

FUNGAL DIVERSITY
卷 80, 期 1, 页码 285-300

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13225-016-0361-1

关键词

Borderline lichens; Dothideomycetes; Endolithics; Lichen-forming fungi; Lichenicolous fungi; Boring ability; Marine fungi; Model comparison

类别

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [CTM2012-38222-C02-02, FPU AP2012-3556, RYC-2014-16784]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The fungal genus Collemopsidium comprises species that develop so-called borderline lichen symbioses with algae or cyanobacteria. Together with morphologically similar pyrenocarpous fungi it has been assigned to the family Xanthopyreniaceae. The adscription of this family to higher taxonomic ranks remain uncertain. Using sequence data of five nuclear genomic regions (nuLSU, nuSSU, tef1-alpha, rpb1 and rpb2) and one mitochondrial locus (mtSSU) we found that the studied representatives of this family are placed in the Dothideomyceta, yet relationships with the classes Dothideomycetes and Arthoniomycetes remain uncertain. We describe the new order Collemopsidiales to accommodate the genus Collemopsidium (paraphyletic as currently understood) and the lichenicolous genus Zwackhiomyces. Using five fungal fossils as calibrations points, we infer an age of c. 230 Mya for the crown of Collemopsidiales. Based on two molecular markers, we also provide insight into the global diversity of marine species of the genus Collemopsidium. According to the species delimitation algorithm GMYC, c. 26 putative species exist, far more than the six species recognized hitherto. We have confirmed this result by comparing the two alternative species models by means of Bayes factors, using path sampling and stepping-stone sampling algorithms to estimate the marginal likelihood of each model. Finally, our observations suggest rock-boring ability evolved in parallel in the different lineages within this group of fungi.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据