25-03-2026 15:06
Bernard CLESSE
Bonjour à toutes et tous,Pourriez-vous me confirm
25-03-2026 10:35
Hulda Caroline HolteHello,I collected this species growing on a dead b
25-03-2026 13:54
Does anyone know where I could download Paoletti's
25-03-2026 15:46
Michel Hairaud
Bonjour, Je sollicite de l'aide pour cette récol
24-03-2026 19:59
William Slosse
Hello everyone,On 23/03/26, I found the following
21-03-2026 15:13
Lepista ZacariasHello everyone, Does any one know of any literatu
24-03-2026 21:37
Elisabeth StöckliBonsoir,Sur bois (tronc) très pourri de conifère
24-03-2026 21:07
Ethan CrensonHello all, A friend collected this asco in a wood
23-03-2026 20:16
Miguel Ángel Ribes
Good eveningI'm unable to identify this Coprotus o
24-03-2026 15:44
Åge OterhalsI hope someone can confirm the name of this collec
Cudoniella junciseda?
DirkW,
24-05-2020 00:52
Salut a tous!Anybody out there, who made experiences with/finds of Cudoniella junciseda?
A few days ago we found these little stalked Apothezia on Juncus in a very water-soaked meadow.
Small: 0,3-0,4 cm high, Hymenium 0,2 cm. Base not blackening. Reddening with age.
Spores 11-13 x 4-5, eguttulate, ciboroid, sometimes ovoid, uniseriat. Asci 70-90 x 7, IKI + (very weak, but visible), Croziers. Paraphyses with refractive Guttules. Textura intricata. So, basically this looks like a bonsai-version of cudoniella clavus ;-)
Its quite strange that the Taxon Cudoniella junciseda is shortly mentioned in Dennis and Ellis & Ellis and after this, there is simply nothing. Nothing we know at least. Who knows more?
All best
Dirk
Hans-Otto Baral,
24-05-2020 06:51
Re : Cudoniella junciseda?
Hi Dirk
I think what you have is C. clavus. But the ectal excipulum should be of t. prismatica.
C. junciseda was described by Dennis 1962: 320 from a find by JT Palmer, with narrowly clavate spores of 9-14 x 2.5-4. I do not have a scale to his drawing but it seems to mke that 4 µm is too broad.
But Velenovsky's short protologue might indeed refer to C. clavus.
Zotto
Viktorie Halasu,
24-05-2020 08:02
Hans-Otto Baral,
24-05-2020 08:10
DirkW,
24-05-2020 19:24
Re : Cudoniella junciseda?
dear viktorie and zotto, thank you very much for the fast response and interesting material! very confusing the descriptions and seemingly not reffering to one single taxon! in the Svrcek-revision a textura globulosa-angularis is mentioned! the description and drawning of dennis/palmer says something different.
perhaps zotto is right, and velenovsky was just mislead (as we) by uncharakteristic small apothezia! the variety in c. clavus is really confusing ...
best
dirk
perhaps zotto is right, and velenovsky was just mislead (as we) by uncharakteristic small apothezia! the variety in c. clavus is really confusing ...
best
dirk
DirkW,
25-05-2020 14:10
Re : Cudoniella junciseda?
another point, which is mysterious in case of c. clavus is, that generally a J- is stated in publications! but thats not the case ... its weak, but its there.
Viktorie Halasu,
25-05-2020 15:47
Re : Cudoniella junciseda?
MLZ vs. IKI ?
Hans-Otto Baral,
25-05-2020 20:49
Re : Cudoniella junciseda?
Yes, MLZ could be a reason for a negative report, but also variation may be the reason, which I think I have observed in C. clavus. In another case, Phaeohelotium epiphyllum, I have IKI- and IKI+ collections combined with DNA data which fully concur in the ITS.
So an absent reaction is not necessarily a sign for a separate species.





