02-02-2026 21:46
Margot en Geert VullingsOn a barkless poplar branch, we found hairy discs
02-02-2026 14:55
Andgelo Mombert
Bonjour,Sur thalle de Lobaria pulmonaria.Conidiome
02-02-2026 14:33
Andgelo Mombert
Bonjour,Sur le thalle de Peltigera praetextata, ne
31-01-2026 10:22
Michel Hairaud
Bonjour, Cette hypocreale parasite en nombre les
02-02-2026 09:29
Bernard CLESSE
Bonjour à toutes et tous,Pour cette récolte de 2
01-02-2026 19:29
Nicolas Suberbielle
Bonjour, Marie-Rose D'Angelo (Société Mycologiq
31-01-2026 09:17
Marc Detollenaere
Dear Forum,On decorticated wood of Castanea,I foun
29-08-2025 05:16
Francois Guay
I think I may have found the teleomorph of Dendros
30-01-2026 21:20
Arnold BüschlenBryocentria brongniartii und B. metzgeriae mit ihr
Will someone help me identify?
Thank you in advance.
Regards
Mirek
A very hard topic for such a novice in this topic as me.
I had to review everything that is available on the internet before I came to any conclusions.
Initially, I tried to compare my collection to T. fuckeliana. However, the features did not suit me at all, although on the asco-sonneberg website I found collections identical to mine, signed just as T. T. fuckeliana;
http://asco-sonneberg.de/pages/gallery/nectria-fuckeliana-100325-mcol-0123451.php?group_id=7071&position=16
However, I measured the spores visible in the pictures themselves and their size is rather very similar to mine and not as stated in the description so I gave up this option.
Then I used the work "The genus Thelonectria (Nectriaceae, Hypocreales, Ascomycota) and closely related species with cylindrocarpon-like asexual states - 2016". I may be wrong but it seems to me that it is written with errors. There are large inaccuracies in the key (see scan No. 01).
Yesterday I came to the earlier work of the same authors and according to her my collection is the closest to Thelonectria discophora;
"Phylogeny and taxonomic revision of Thelonectria discophora
(Ascomycota, Hypocreales, Nectriaceae) species complex - 2013 ".
(See scan 02)
Today I have measured a greater number of spores and their dimensions are practically perfectly consistent with this description!
(11.4) 11.9 - 15.1 (16.2) × (4.6) 4.9 - 5.9 (6.2) µm
Q = (2.1) 2.2 - 2.8 (3); N = 34
Me = 13.4 × 5.5 µm; Qe = 2.5
Individual dimensions of the spores are given in the picture nr. 03
Christian, fruiting bodies are not overripe. I showed germs germinating but there were very few. In my opinion, the fruiting bodies are of the perfect age for microscopy. In my collection there are completely immature spores and free spores that are already germinating. However, the vast majority of spores are moderately mature, with ornamentation already formed. This time I have measured just such.
I compared other species but in their case the size of the spores is not compatible with mine!
Thank you for the hint!
You'll agree with me?
Regards
Mirek
http://www.centrodeestudiosmicologicosasturianos.org/?p=15486
It is true that my photo is not as perfect as Enrique but you can see sufficient arrangement of the cells.
Is this how it was supposed to look like?
Regards
Mirek
Your help was priceless!
Mirek


























