23-01-2026 21:50
Cameron DKI am looking for this please publication. is anyon
10-01-2026 20:00
Tom SchrierHi all,We found picnidia on Protoparmeliopsis mur
21-01-2026 16:32
Gernot FriebesHi,I need your help with some black dots on a lich
21-01-2026 16:48
Gernot FriebesHi,after my last unknown hyphomycete on this subst
20-01-2026 17:49
Hardware Tony
I offer this collection as a possibility only as e
15-01-2026 15:55
Lothar Krieglsteiner
this one is especially interesting for me because
17-01-2026 19:35
Arnold BüschlenHallo, ich suche zu Cosmospora aurantiicola Lite
Correct name for Brunnipila fuscescens var. fagicola?
Viktorie Halasu,
29-05-2017 07:52
Hello forum,would you please advise me, what is the correct (or preferred) name for collections of Brunnipila fuscescens from beech cupules? B&K have it as Dasyscyphus fuscescens var. fagicola, but that variety was never combined to Brunnipila (as far as I know). Baral & Krieglsteiner (1985) separate them on the basis of host specificity (Quercus leaves or otherwise), but in Zotto's folder there are currently collections from beech leaves and cupules together as "B. fuscescens". Is there a reason to separate the collections from cupules anymore?
Thank you.
Viktorie
Hans-Otto Baral,
29-05-2017 09:40
Re : Correct name for Brunnipila fuscescens var. fagicola?
Dear Viktorie
Earlier I was thinking that samples on Quercus leaves might be something else than samples on Fagus leaves and cupules, but the differences are rather vague (broader spores and darker hairs on Qiuercus, rareness of Quercus samples in my area but their frequency in atlantic regions). As I remember, var. fagicola was used for samples on cupules in contrast to leaves irrespective of the host.
I did not remember that I combined Brunnipila fagicola in 1985 because I later got doubts about this. I did not know, however, that Persoon described fuscescens on Fagus leaves, so I think fagicola is the same as fuscescens.
I made today tree with available sequences. This shows that we must distinguish between Fagus and Quercus, but not between cupules and leaves. Peziza brunneola was described by Desmazieres from Quercus leaves, so this taxon appears to require combination in Brunnipila.
The situation is more complex, as samples from Asia do not fit in either of these species. The host is not given but could perhaps be found out. In Japan occur Quercus and Fagus as well but they are other species.
Zotto
Earlier I was thinking that samples on Quercus leaves might be something else than samples on Fagus leaves and cupules, but the differences are rather vague (broader spores and darker hairs on Qiuercus, rareness of Quercus samples in my area but their frequency in atlantic regions). As I remember, var. fagicola was used for samples on cupules in contrast to leaves irrespective of the host.
I did not remember that I combined Brunnipila fagicola in 1985 because I later got doubts about this. I did not know, however, that Persoon described fuscescens on Fagus leaves, so I think fagicola is the same as fuscescens.
I made today tree with available sequences. This shows that we must distinguish between Fagus and Quercus, but not between cupules and leaves. Peziza brunneola was described by Desmazieres from Quercus leaves, so this taxon appears to require combination in Brunnipila.
The situation is more complex, as samples from Asia do not fit in either of these species. The host is not given but could perhaps be found out. In Japan occur Quercus and Fagus as well but they are other species.
Zotto
Viktorie Halasu,
29-05-2017 23:27
Re : Correct name for Brunnipila fuscescens var. fagicola?
Dear Zotto,
thank you very much.
Viktorie
thank you very much.
Viktorie