1,720,962 research outputs found
FIGURE 5 in Taxonomic and phylogenetic appraisal of a new holomorphic Neophyllachora species from Chiang Mai, Thailand
No full textFIGURE 5. Neophyllachora religiosa (MFLU 23-0255, MFLU 23-0257). a. Vertical section through spermatogonia showing spermatia bearing cells and spermatia. b. Spermatia. c. Conidiomata. d. Conidiogenous cells (arrows showing conidiogenous cells), e. Conidia. Scale bars: f–j = 20 µm, k–q = 10 µmPublished as part of Literatus, Irish C. E., Maharachchikumbura, Sajeewa S. N., Withee, Patchareeya, Haituk, Sukanya, Tamakaew, Nisachon, Nguanhom, Jeerapa, Monkhung, Sararat, Thiyagaraja, Vinodhini & Cheewangkoon, Ratchadawan, 2023, Taxonomic and phylogenetic appraisal of a new holomorphic Neophyllachora species from Chiang Mai, Thailand, pp. 259-271 in Phytotaxa 600 (5) on page 267, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.600.5.1, http://zenodo.org/record/812940
FIGURE 3 in Taxonomic and phylogenetic appraisal of a new holomorphic Neophyllachora species from Chiang Mai, Thailand
No full textFIGURE 3. Neophyllachora religiosa (MFLU 23-0254, MFLU 23-0256). a. Tar spot on living leaves. b. Upper leaf surface with symptoms. c. Lower leaf surface with symptoms. d. Pseudostroma e. Horizontal section through pseudostroma. f, g. Vertical section through ascomata. h. Vertical section through peridium. i. Asci and paraphyses. j. Paraphyses. k–n. Asci (In 'l', arrow showing central concave depression; In 'n', arrows showing guttules). o–p. Ascospores (In 'p' arrows showing mucilaginous sheath). u–q. Germinated ascospores. Scale bars: f, g =30 µm, h = 10 µm, i = 50 µm, j = 5 µm, k–n = 20 µm, o–q = 10 µm.Published as part of Literatus, Irish C. E., Maharachchikumbura, Sajeewa S. N., Withee, Patchareeya, Haituk, Sukanya, Tamakaew, Nisachon, Nguanhom, Jeerapa, Monkhung, Sararat, Thiyagaraja, Vinodhini & Cheewangkoon, Ratchadawan, 2023, Taxonomic and phylogenetic appraisal of a new holomorphic Neophyllachora species from Chiang Mai, Thailand, pp. 259-271 in Phytotaxa 600 (5) on page 265, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.600.5.1, http://zenodo.org/record/812940
Capnodium paracoartatum S. Thungdee, S. Hongsanan, & R. Cheewangkoon 2023
No full text<i>Capnodium paracoartatum</i> Q. Tian, W.J. Li & K.D. Hyde ex S. Thungdee, S. Hongsanan, & R. Cheewangkoon, <i>sp.</i> <i>nov.</i> <p>Index Fungorum number: IF900896</p> <p>Typification details: Holotype, MFLU 19-2888; ex-type living culture, MFLUCC 14-0282.</p> <p>Distribution: Thailand</p> <p> Host: on living leaves of <i>Ficus</i> sp. (Moraceae)</p> <p> Originally described as <i>Capnodium paracoartatum</i> Q. Tian, W.J. Li & K.D. Hyde, in Li & Hyde, Fungal Diversity 100: 372 (2020) in Li <i>et al.</i> (2020), Nom. inval., Art. F.5.1 (Shenzhen).</p> <p> Notes: <i>Capnodium paracoartatum</i> was first introduced by Li <i>et al</i>. (2020). However, it was shown as invalid due to the absence of a required identifier citation, as per ‘Nom. inval., Art. F.5.1 Shenzhen’ (Index Fungorum (2023). This species was reported as saprobic on sugary exudates from insects and produced a thallus on the leaf surface. This thallus comprises brown to pale brown, sub-cylindrical, irregularly branched, septate, and constricted at the septa mycelium. The sexual morph of this species is similar to <i>Ca. coartatum</i> and the asexual morph of <i>Ca. paracoartatum</i> differs from <i>Ca. coartatum</i> by its conidial size. Li <i>et al</i>. (2020) mentioned that using conidial size alone is insufficient to distinguish <i>Capnodium</i> species. However, based on phylogenetic analyses, it has been determined that <i>Ca. paracoartatum</i> is a distinct species (Li <i>et al</i>. 2020, FIGURE 1 in this study). Consequently, we hereby validly establish <i>Ca. paracoartatum</i> as a recognized species.</p>Published as part of <i>Haituk, Supitchakorn Thungdee Sukanya, Withee, Patchareeya, Cheewangkoon, Ratchadawan, Suwannarach, Nakarin, Marasinghe, Diana S. & Hongsanan, Sinang, 2023, Unraveling Capnodiaceae species in Northern Thailand, pp. 143-156 in Phytotaxa 620 (2)</i> on page 148, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.620.2.2, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/10011254">http://zenodo.org/record/10011254</a>
Phragmocapnias Theiss. & Syd.
No full text<i>Phragmocapnias</i> Theiss. & Syd. <p> <i>Phragmocapnias</i> was previously linked with <i>Conidiocarpus</i> and accepted as the sexual morph of <i>Conidiocarpus.</i> According to the nomenclatural rule of one name for one fungus, Bose <i>et al</i>. (2014) concluded that <i>Conidiocarpus</i> should be treated as a synonym of <i>Phragmocapnias</i> for these interconnected genera. Apart from <i>Ph. philippinensis</i>, all species within <i>Phragmocapnias</i> were transferred to <i>Conidiocarpus</i> by Bose <i>et al.</i> (2014). Following Bose <i>et al.</i> (2014), Hongsanan <i>et al.</i> (2015) synonymized <i>Ph. philippinensis</i> under <i>Co. philippinensis</i>. Abdollahzadeh <i>et al</i>. (2020) revealed that the type species of <i>Conidiocarpus</i> and <i>Phragmocapnias</i> formed as two distinct clades, representing two separate genera. While, two strains of <i>Conidiocarpus</i> (<i>Co. betle</i> and <i>Co. plumeriae</i>) clustered with <i>Phragmocapnias</i> clade (Abdollahzadeh <i>et al</i>. 2020, this study). Consequently, <i>Ph. betle</i> is resurrected, and <i>Co. plumeriae</i> was transferred to <i>Phragmocapnias</i> (Abdollahzadeh <i>et al.</i> 2020). In this study, we provide a new strain for <i>Ph. betle</i>, introducing the new host record from <i>Rosa</i> × <i>damascena</i>.</p>Published as part of <i>Haituk, Supitchakorn Thungdee Sukanya, Withee, Patchareeya, Cheewangkoon, Ratchadawan, Suwannarach, Nakarin, Marasinghe, Diana S. & Hongsanan, Sinang, 2023, Unraveling Capnodiaceae species in Northern Thailand, pp. 143-156 in Phytotaxa 620 (2)</i> on page 152, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.620.2.2, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/10011254">http://zenodo.org/record/10011254</a>
Neophyllachora Dayar. & K.D.Hyde 2017
No full text<p> Key to species of <i>Neophyllachora</i></p> <p> 1. Parasitic on <i>Ficus, Myrcia</i> and <i>Myrciaria</i> species..............................................................................................................................2</p> <p> 1’. Parasitic on <i>Psidium</i> species, ascospores thin-walled, short-ellipsoidal covered with thin-walled gelatinous sheath............................................................................................................................................................................................................. <i>N. subcircinans</i></p> <p> 2. Parasitic on <i>Ficus</i>, <i>Myrcia</i> species.....................................................................................................................................................3</p> <p> 2’. Parasitic on <i>Myrciaria</i> species, clavate-fusoid asci........................................................................................................ <i>N. myrciariae</i></p> <p> 3. Parasitic on <i>Myrcia</i> species, fusoid asci, ascospores covered with gelatinous sheath.......................................................................4</p> <p> 3’. Parasitic on <i>Myrcia</i> species, lunate-reniform to half-moon shape ascospores with thick walled............................. <i>N. truncatispora</i></p> <p> 4. Elliptic-Oblong ascospores with microguttulate cytoplasm......................................................................................... <i>N. cerradensis</i></p> <p> 4’. Lunate ascospores with thin-walled................................................................................................................................... <i>N. myrciae</i></p> <p> 5. Parasitic on <i>Ficus</i>, globose to ellipsoidal ascospores with gelatinous.............................................................................. <i>N. religiosa</i></p> <p> 5’. Parasitic on <i>Ficus</i>, globose to subglobose ascospores without gelatinous sheath...................................................................... <i>N. fici</i></p>Published as part of <i>Literatus, Irish C. E., Maharachchikumbura, Sajeewa S. N., Withee, Patchareeya, Haituk, Sukanya, Tamakaew, Nisachon, Nguanhom, Jeerapa, Monkhung, Sararat, Thiyagaraja, Vinodhini & Cheewangkoon, Ratchadawan, 2023, Taxonomic and phylogenetic appraisal of a new holomorphic Neophyllachora species from Chiang Mai, Thailand, pp. 259-271 in Phytotaxa 600 (5)</i> on page 268, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.600.5.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/8129400">http://zenodo.org/record/8129400</a>
Phragmocapnias betle Theiss. & Syd., Annls
No full text<i>Phragmocapnias betle</i> (Syd., P. Syd. & E.J. Butler) Theiss. & Syd., Annls mycol. 15(6): 480 (1918) [1917] <p>Index Fungorum number: IF151279; FIGURE 5</p> <p> <i>Colonies saprobic</i>, sooty mold-like, growing on leaves of <i>Rosa × damascena</i> (Rosaceae) (FIGURE 5a, b). <i>Thallus</i>, dark mycelium growing cover leave surface, black, pelliculose. <i>Mycelium</i> superficial or immersed, hyaline to brown, branched, hyphae smooth, thin-walled, septate (FIGURE 5g). <i>Ascomata</i> 90–100 high × up to 120 μm diam. (<i>x</i> = 117 × 98 μm, n = 5), scattered, subglobose to broadly ellipsoidal, firmly attached to the radiating basal hyphae, pale brown, thick-walled, with ostiole when mature. <i>Peridium</i> 14–18 μm wide, pale to dark brown, cells arranged in a <i>textura angularis</i> (FIGURE 5f). <i>Asci</i> 38–48 × 17–27 μm (<i>x</i> = 45 × 23 μm, n = 7), 8-spored, bitunicate, broadly clavate, with short pedicle, (FIGURE 5h, i). <i>Ascospores</i> 20–23× 5–6.5 μm (<i>x</i> = 22 × 6 μm, n = 10), hyaline, 4–5-septate, fasciculate, cylindric clavate, ends rounded, upper cell slightly wider than the lower cell, smooth-walled, some surrounded by tiny sheath (FIGURE 5j).</p> <p> Material examined: THAILAND, Chiang Mai Province, on living leaves of <i>Rosa × damascena</i> (Rosaceae), 10 October 2022, S Hongsanan SDBR-CMURS02.1/1= CMUB40027, living culture in SDBR-CMU480</p> <p> Note: Our sooty mold collection (SDBR-CMU480) was found on living leaves of <i>Rosa × damascena</i> (Rosaceae). We could not identify the primary insect responsible for producing the sugar excretions that serve as nutrition resources for the sooty mold. Instead, we observed 1–2 black garden ants moving around the leaves. In the phylogenetic analysis (FIGURE 1), this strain grouped with other strains of <i>Phragmocapnias betle</i> (CPC 17762, CPC 20476, CPC 21379, and MFLUCC10-0053), with 88% ML/ 1.00 PP support.The morphological characteristics of SDBR-CMU480 are identical to those epitype specimens of <i>Ph. betle</i> described by Chomnunti <i>et al.</i> (2011). However, our strain SDBR-CMU480 has larger ascomata (90–100 × up to 120 μm diam. vs. 82–93 × 84–105 μm diam.). The size of asci and ascospores in our strain resemble those of the epitype specimen (asci: 38–48 × 17–27 μm vs. 43–53 × 13–33 μm, ascospores: 20–23× 5–6.5 μm vs. 20–24 × 4.8–5.8 μm, Chomnunti <i>et al.</i> 2011). Based on the morphological characteristics and phylogenetic analyses, we identified our collection as <i>Ph. betle</i> and this is the first report of <i>Ca. coartatum</i> from <i>Rosa × damascena</i> (Rosaceae).</p>Published as part of <i>Haituk, Supitchakorn Thungdee Sukanya, Withee, Patchareeya, Cheewangkoon, Ratchadawan, Suwannarach, Nakarin, Marasinghe, Diana S. & Hongsanan, Sinang, 2023, Unraveling Capnodiaceae species in Northern Thailand, pp. 143-156 in Phytotaxa 620 (2)</i> on page 152, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.620.2.2, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/10011254">http://zenodo.org/record/10011254</a>
Conidiocarpus caucasicus Woron.
No full text<i>Conidiocarpus caucasicus</i> Woron., Key to fungi (fungi imperfecti) 2: 743 (1917) <p>Index Fungorum number: IF 803878; FIGURE 4</p> <p> = <i>Conidiocarpus asiaticus</i> (Chomnunti & K.D. Hyde) T. Bose, in Bose, Reynolds & Burbee, Mycologia 106(4): 751 (2014)</p> <p> = <i>Conidiocarpus siamensis</i> (Chomnunti & K.D. Hyde) T. Bose, in Bose, Reynolds & Burbee, Mycologia 106(4): 753 (2014)</p> <p> <i>Saprobic</i> sooty mold-like, growing on living leaves <i>Mangifera indica</i>. <i>Thallus</i> thin, dark brown, reticulately branched, dense, easily removed from the host surface, composed of brown, septate hyphae. <b>Sexual morph</b>: Not observed. <b>Asexual morph</b>: <i>Pycnidia</i> 650–1080 × 40–60 μm (<i>x</i> = 875 × 50 μm, n = 10), solitary to gregarious, superficial, black to dark brown, subcylindrical, straight or variously curved, unbranched or branched, thick-walled, swollen, narrow globose, brown, cylindrical, long-stalked. <i>Ostiole</i> surrounded by hyaline, subulate, hyphal extensions tapering to apex. <i>Conidia</i> 4.2–4.7 × 2.0–2.6 μm (<i>x</i> = 4.5 × 2.3 μm, n = 10), small, ellipsoid, continuous, aseptate, hyaline, smooth-walled, arranged in a droplet at the apex of pycnidial neck.</p> <p> <i>Material examined</i>: THAILAND, Payao Province, on living leaf of <i>Mangifera indica</i> (Anacardiaceae), 4 November 2022, S Hongsanan SDBR-CMUMG01 = CMUB 40026, living culture SDBR-CMU 478.</p> <p> <i>Notes</i>: Our collection of <i>Conidiocarpus caucasicus</i> (SDBR-CMU 478) was collected in Thailand (Payao Province). We observed 1–2 carcasses of aphids on a single leaf of our specimen. The strain SDBR-CMU 478 is morphologically identical to <i>Co. caucasicus</i> in having dark brown, dense, thallus, long-stalked, black to dark brown pycnidia with hyaline, aseptate, ellipsoid conidia (Abdollahzadeh <i>et al.</i> 2020). According to our phylogenetic analysis (FIGURE 1), our strain (SDBR-CMU 478) clustered together with <i>Co. asiticus</i> (MFLUCC 10-0062), <i>Co. caucasicus</i> (GUMH 937), and <i>Co. siamensis</i> (MFLUCC 10-0064/10-0063). Moreover, our phylogenetic result is consistent with those of Abdollahzadeh <i>et al.</i> (2020), confirming that the strains of <i>Co</i>. <i>asiticus</i>, <i>Co. caucasicus</i>, and <i>Co. siamensis</i> were not well-separated taxa with significant phylogenetical interference. Herein, we synonymized these species under <i>Co. caucasicus</i> giving priority to the oldest name. Furthermore, the strain of <i>Co. siamensis</i> (MFLUCC 10-0061) formed a distinct clade with <i>Conidiocarpus</i> sp. (CPC 20464 and CPC 20468) to the basal of <i>Conidiocarpus</i> clade. This may be due to inconsistencies in the availability of gene regions. We observed that the ITS base pair difference between MFLUCC 10-0061 strain and other <i>Co. siamensis</i> strains lacks enough phylogenetic significance (1.4%) to delineate it as a distinct species.</p>Published as part of <i>Haituk, Supitchakorn Thungdee Sukanya, Withee, Patchareeya, Cheewangkoon, Ratchadawan, Suwannarach, Nakarin, Marasinghe, Diana S. & Hongsanan, Sinang, 2023, Unraveling Capnodiaceae species in Northern Thailand, pp. 143-156 in Phytotaxa 620 (2)</i> on pages 151-152, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.620.2.2, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/10011254">http://zenodo.org/record/10011254</a>
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
- …
