
13-09-2025 14:10
Wim de GrootWe found this hymenoscyphus on rubus fruticulosis.

11-09-2025 16:57
Our revision of Marthamycetales (Leotiomycetes) is

13-09-2025 14:01
Thomas Flammerdark brown apothecia, splitIKI-Spores biguttulate

10-09-2025 23:53

Found on Robinia pseudoacasia together with Diapor

10-09-2025 17:18

Hola, encontre este estiercol de vaca estos apotec

02-09-2025 11:34
Thomas Læssøehttps://svampe.databasen.org/observations/10527903


I think I have written enough articles on these two topics. The mentioned article should include a short summary of my atricles and give their reference.
Articles to mention:
Baral, H.O. (1987). Lugol's solution/IKI versus Melzer's reagent: hemiamyloidity, a universal feature of the ascus wall. – Mycotaxon 29: 399–450.
Baral, H.O. (1987). Der Apikalapparat der Helotiales. Eine lichtmikroskopische Studie über Arten mit Amyloidring. – Z. Mykol. 53 (1): 119–136.
Baral, H.O. (1992). Vital versus herbarium taxonomy: morphological differences between living and dead cells of Ascomycetes, and their taxonomic implications. – Mycotaxon 44 (2): 333–390.
Baral, H.O. (2009). Iodine reaction in Ascomycetes: why is Lugol's solution superior to Melzer's reagent? – http://www.in-vivo-veritas.de/articles/iodine-reaction-in-ascomycetes-why-is-lugols-solution-superior-to-melzers-reagent/
Zotto

This overall strategy looks weird, rude and scientifically unsound to me. I would suggest you try to convince the publisher to think again about the requirement for authors to cite previous work, especially when it is relevant and seminal. Not doing so is often perceived as some sort of scientific misconduct.
I would like to add that, as a reviewer (in molecular plant-microbe interactions), I always request authors to cite relevant literature when there is an obvious attempt to hide previous work due to contradiction or anteriority.
Hope that helps.
Best regards,
Edouard
