The disks are sessile, 80-200 µm wide, with a darker slightly raised margin. The exciple is covered with a crust covering everything and preventing a view of what is behind. A similar crust is in part also covering the hymenium (pseudoepithecium?). Asci eight-spored, 32-55 × 5.9-7.3 µm, the bases are so agglutinated that I dont't know about croziers, negative in Lugol with and without pretreatment. The spores are 7.0-8.0 × 2.6-2.9 µm, with a few small guttules at each end. The parafyses are slighly clavate, 3.0-4.2 µm at apex and unfortunately so easily dying that I can't say anything about their contents.

I can't find a Micropeziza with such small spores - or is it something else?

Hans-Otto Baral, 05-06-2022 11:07

Re : Micropeziza(?) on Chamaenerion

Good docu! Micropeziza has very striking VBs in the living paraphyses (in the apex). I am not sure if you saw living paraphyses here. I would check with KOH if the pigment gets dissolved.

In my Cordieritidaceae folder, subfolder "Skyttea = Durella redbrown", might be similar species, but they show the ionomidotic recation and I never saw them on herbs.

Hans-Otto Baral, 06-06-2022 09:30

Re : Micropeziza(?) on Chamaenerion

This all looks indeed like a Micropeziza, but I wonder why these VBs in the paraphysis apices are angular, not roundish. Maybe they are already distorted?

This is actually the same species as you have pointed out:

"Javier Balda: I found this on "dry Angelica still standing" croziers - IKI -". I am not sure with the absent croziers, but it could be. Did you make up your mind regarding croziers?

I put the two in a folder "Angelica + Chamaenerion" but fear they are misplaced in Cordieritidaceae.

Hans-Otto Baral, 06-06-2022 21:22

Re : Micropeziza(?) on Chamaenerion

On the right picture it is clearly withput croziers (in case these are ascus bases). A possibility is that some asci have protuberances which do not rejoin. Complete croziers are required in order to be sure.