20-03-2026 16:16
Edvin Johannesen
These 0.5 mm diam. acervuli were breaking through
19-03-2026 19:34
Hello everyone,a few days ago I collected this str
19-03-2026 18:25
William Slosse
Good evening everyone, On 18/03/26 I found a few
17-03-2026 10:09
François Freléchoux
Bonjour, Voici la description rapide d'un petit d
19-03-2026 17:50
Hi to everybodyThese thiny, blackish pseudothecia
18-03-2026 13:09
Khomenko Igor
I recently examined Celtis occidentalis branches
17-03-2026 19:41
Bernard CLESSE
Bonsoir à toutes et tous,Pourriez-vous m'aider à
18-03-2026 17:22
Katarina PastircakovaHi there,I'm looking for the following literature:
Hello, a few days ago I have collected a Macroconia growing on Leptosphaeria doliolum (both of them growing on old Urtica). Ascospores in this collection measure (15.6) 16.2 - 19.9 (20.5) × (5.8) 6 - 7.2 (7.4) µm, Q = (2.3) 2.33 - 3.1 (3.4). Me = 17.9 × 6.7 µm; Qe = 2.7. They are first hyaline, then brownish, one-septate, very finely punctate. I have measured the width in the thickest part, not in the constriction.
I am not sure whether to determine it as M. leptosphaeriae or M. sphaeriae. Fungi of temperate Europe state these two taxa are perhaps identical, but Grafenhan et al. 2011 distinguish them as two species. They write: "The distinction between Macroconia leptosphaeriae and
M. sphaeriae is based on the size of ascospores and conidia in the
type collections. According to Wollenweber (1926), the ascospores
of the type material of M. leptosphaeriae are smaller (14–18 ×
5–5.5 µm) than those of M. sphaeriae (19–25 × 5.8–6.5 µm)."
Unfortunatelly I haven´t encountered any conidia, so I have to rely on ascospores. However, my values are between the values for the two species given by Wollenweber. Maybe this author measured dead ascospores (therefore smaller than my vital ones - then my collection would better fit M. leptosphaeriae)?
Thanks, Zuzana
Thank you very much for your reply. No existence of M. sphaeriae would make it much easier.
Zuzana


