Next Article in Journal
Clinical and Eco-Epidemiological Aspects of a Novel Hyperendemic Area of Paracoccidioidomycosis in the Tocantins-Araguaia Basin (Northern Brazil), Caused by Paracoccidioides sp.
Next Article in Special Issue
Comparative Mitogenomic Analysis Reveals Intraspecific, Interspecific Variations and Genetic Diversity of Medical Fungus Ganoderma
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Three New Species of Hypoxylon (Xylariales, Ascomycota) on a Multigene Phylogeny from Medog in Southwest China
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Taxonomy and Phylogeny of Meruliaceae with Descriptions of Two New Species from China

1
School of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
2
Institute of Vegetable Research, Jinzu Road 147, Lhasa 850000, China
3
Department of Botany, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 1118 Budapest, Hungary
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Fungi 2022, 8(5), 501; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8050501
Submission received: 18 April 2022 / Revised: 9 May 2022 / Accepted: 10 May 2022 / Published: 11 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Phylogeny and Diversity of Forestry Fungi)

Abstract

:
Two new wood-inhabiting fungi Hermanssonia fimbriata sp. nov. and Phlebia austroasiana sp. nov. in the Meruliaceae family are described and illustrated from southwestern China based on molecular and morphological evidence. The characteristics of H. fimbriata include annual, resupinate basidiomata, the absence of cystidia and cystidioles, oblong ellipsoid basidiospores of 5–6 × 2.4–3 μm, and growth on rotten gymnosperm wood in the east Himalayas. Its basidiomata change drastically upon drying, from being a light-coloured, juicy, papillose-to-wrinkled hymenophore, to a dark-coloured, corky-to-gelatinous, and more or less smooth hymenophore. The characteristics of Ph. austroasiana include annual, resupinate basidiomata, a hydnoid hymenophore, 2–3 spines per mm, the presence of tubular cystidia of 20–25 × 3–3.5 µm, oblong ellipsoid basidiospores of 4.4–5.2 × 2.1–3 μm, and growth on angiosperm wood in tropical forests in the southern Yunnan Province. The phylogenetic analyses based on the combined 2-locus dataset (ITS1-5.8S-ITS2 (ITS) + nuclear large subunit RNA (nLSU)) confirm the placement of two new species, respectively, in Hermanssonia and Phlebia s. lato. Phylogenetically, the closely-related species to these two new species are discussed.

1. Introduction

The phlebioid clade within Polyporales includes three lineages at a family level, namely Phanerochaetaceae, Irpicaceae, and Meruliaceae [1,2]. The taxonomy of many of the genera belonging to these families is not currently settled, and a case in point example is the genus Phlebia. In a recent study, Chen et al. [3] concluded that Phlebia s.l. is still polyphyletic, with members addressed in all families of the phlebioid clade. Based on their multigene phylogenetic analysis, the core Phlebia clade belongs to the Meruliaceae with three additional clades: the Hydnophlebia clade, the Mycoacia clade, and the Sarcodontia clade. The core Phlebia clade included the genera Aurantiopileus Ginns et al., Aurantiporus Murrill, Pappia Zmitr., and Phlebia s.s., as well as some species of Ceriporiopsis Domański s.l. and Mycoacia s.l. [3].
Phlebia Fr. was erected by Fries [4] and typified by Phlebia radiata Fr. As the delimitation of the genus Phlebia s. str. is not yet clarified, in the present paper, we treat Phlebia sensu in the same way as Chen et al. [3]. The genus is characterized by white-rot, resupinate or rarely pileate basidiocarps with a tuberculate, merulioid, folded, odontioid or hydnoid hymenophore, a monomitic hyphal system, generative hyphae with clamp connections, neither amyloid nor dextrinoid, and allantoid to ellipsoid, hyaline, thin-walled, smooth, neither amyloid nor dextrinoid, acyanophilous basidiospores [3,5]. Formerly, several genera have been proposed to accommodate different lineages of Phlebia s. lato, but still many of the species has no modern interpretation, e.g., [3,6]. The monotypic genus Hermanssonia Zmitr. (Meruliaceae, Polyporales) was erected by Zmitrovich [7], based on H. centrifuga (P. Karst.) Zmitr. (=Phlebia centrifuga P. Karst.). The genus is characterized by white-rot, resupinate to effuse-reflexed, ceraceous to cartilaginous basidiomata, a phlebioid (radially-costate) or tuberculate hymenophore, a monomitic hyphal system, generative hyphae with clamp connections, and cylindrical, hyaline, thin-walled, smooth, neither amyloid nor dextrinoid basidiospores [7].
Four resupinate phlebioid specimens were collected from southwestern China (Tibet and Yunnan Province) during studies on wood-inhabiting fungi, and their morphology corresponded to concepts of Hermanssonia and Phlebia. Phylogenetic analyses based on the ITS1-5.8S-ITS2 (ITS) and nuclear large subunit RNA (nLSU) rDNA sequences were conducted to confirm their affinity. Both morphological and molecular evidence demonstrated that these four specimens represent two undescribed species of Meruliaceae. Thus, they are described in this paper.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Morphological Studies

Macro-morphological descriptions were based on voucher specimens and field notes. Microscopic structures were prepared from slide preparations of dried tissues stained with Cotton Blue and Melzer’s reagent as described by Wu et al. [8]. The following abbreviations are used in the description: CB = Cotton Blue; CB– = acyanophilous in Cotton Blue; IKI = Melzer’s reagent; IKI– = neither amyloid nor dextrinoid in Melzer’s reagent; KOH = 5% potassium hydroxide; L = mean spore length (arithmetic average of basidiospores); W = mean spore width (arithmetic average of basidiospores); and Q = variation in the L/W ratios between the specimens studied, (n = a/b) = number of spores (a) measured from given number of specimens (b). When the variation in spore size is shown, 5% of the measurements were excluded from each end of the range, and these values are shown in parentheses. Special colour terms follow Petersen [9] and herbarium abbreviations follow Thiers [10]. The voucher specimens for the present study are deposited in the herbarium of the Institute of Microbiology, Beijing Forestry University (BJFC), Beijing, China.

2.2. DNA Extraction, PCR, and Sequencing

Total genomic DNA was extracted from dried specimens using a CTAB Rapid Plant Genome Extraction Kit (Aidlab Biotechnologies Company, Ltd., Beijing, China) according to the manufacturer’s instructions with some modifications [11]. The ITS regions were amplified with primers ITS4 and ITS5 [12]. The nLSU regions were amplified with primers LR0R and LR7 [13].
The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) procedure for the ITS was as follows: initial denaturation at 95 °C for 3 min, followed by 35 cycles at 94 °C for 40 s, 54 °C for 45 s, 72 °C for 1 min, and a final extension of 72 °C for 10 min. The PCR procedure for the nLSU was as follows: initial denaturation at 94 °C for 1 min, followed by 35 cycles at 94 °C for 30 s, 48 °C for 1 min, and 72 °C for 1.5 min, and a final extension of 72 °C for 10 min [14]. The purification and sequencing of the PCR products was conducted by the Beijing Genomics Institute, Beijing, China, with the same primers used in the PCR reactions. Species were identified by sequence comparison with accessions in the NCBI databases using the BLAST program.

2.3. Phylogenetic Analyses

Phylogenetic trees were constructed using ITS + nLSU rDNA sequences, and phylogenetic analyses were performed with the Maximum Likelihood (ML), Maximum Parsimony (MP), and Bayesian Inference (BI) methods. Sequences of the species and strains were primarily adopted from ITS-based and 28S-based tree topology, as described by Huang et al. [5] and Chen et al. [3]. New sequences generated in this study, along with reference sequences retrieved from GenBank (Table 1), were aligned by MAFFT 7 (Katoh et al. [15]; http://mafft.cbrc.jp/alignment/server/, accessed on 18 April 2022) using the “G-INS-i” strategy and manually adjusted in BioEdit v. 7.2.5 [16]. Unreliably aligned sections were removed before the analyses, and efforts were made to manually inspect and improve the alignment. The data matrix was edited in Mesquite v3.70 (https://www.mesquiteproject.org/ (accessed on 18 April 2022). [17]. The sequence alignment was deposited at TreeBase. Sequences of Hyphoderma mutatum (Peck) Donk and H. setigerum (Fr.) Donk obtained from GenBank (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/ (accessed on 18 April 2022) were used as outgroups to root the trees in the ITS + nLSU analysis.
Table 1. Taxa information and GenBank accession numbers of the sequences used in this study.
Table 1. Taxa information and GenBank accession numbers of the sequences used in this study.
SpeciesSampleGenBank Accession No.References
ITSnLSU
Aurantiopileus mayaensiJV 1504/128KT156706
A. mayaensiTJB10228HM772140HM772139[18]
Aurantiporus croceusMiettinen-16483KY948745KY948901[2]
A. roseusDai 13573KJ698635KJ698639[19]
Ceriporiopsis alboaurantiaCui 4136KF845955KF845948[20]
C. alboaurantiaCui 2877KF845954KF845947[20]
C. fimbriataCui 1671KJ698634KJ698638[19]
C. fimbriataDai 11672KJ698633KJ698637[19]
C. gilvescensBRNM 710166FJ496684FJ496684[21]
C. gilvescensBRNM 667882FJ496685FJ496719[21]
C. guidellaHUBO 7659FJ496687FJ496722[21]
C. kunmingensisCLZhao 152KX081072KX081074[22]
C. kunmingensisCLZhao 153KX081073KX081075[22]
C. lagerheimii58240KX008365KX081077[23]
C. pseudoplacentaPRM 899297JN592497JN592504[24]
C. pseudoplacentaPRM 899300JN592498JN592505[24]
C. semisupinaCui 10222KF845956KF845949[20]
C. semisupinaCui 7971KF845957KF845950[20]
Climacodon septentrionalisAFTOL-767AY854082AY684165[25]
C. septentrionalisRLG-6890-SpKP135344[26]
Crustodontia chrysocreasHHB-3946KP135357[26]
C. chrysocreasHHB-6333-SpKP135358KP135263[26]
C. nigrodonteaCLZhao 2758MT896824[5]
C. nigrodonteaCLZhao 2445MT896821MT896818[27]
C. sp.KUC20121123-24KJ668482[28]
C. tongxinianaCLZhao 2255MT020773MT020751[27]
C. tongxinianaCLZhao 2316MT020774MT020752[27]
Geesterania carneolaMCW 388/12KY174999KY174999[29]
G. davidiiMCW 396/12KY174998KY174998[29]
Hermanssonia centrifugaCBS 125890MH864088MH875547[30]
H. centrifugaHHB-9239-SpKP135380KP135262[26]
H. fimbriataDai 23266ON135436ON135440Present study
H. fimbriataDai 23305ON135437ON135441Present study
H. fimbriataDai 23306ON135438ON135442Present study
Hydnophanerochaete odontoideaCLZhao 3882MH784919MH784929[31]
H. odontoideaCLZhao 4036MH784927MH784937[31]
Hydnophlebia chrysorhizaFD-282KP135338KP135217[26]
H. chrysorhizaHHB-18767KP135337[26]
Hyphoderma mutatumHHB-15479-SpKP135296KP135221[26]
H. setigerumFD-312KP135297KP135222[26]
Lilaceophlebia lividaFCUG 2189AF141624AF141624[21]
L. lividaFCUG 1290HQ153414[32]
L. subserialisFCUG 1434AF141631AF141631
Luteochaete subglobosaCLZhao 3639MK881898MK881788[33]
L. subglobosaCLZhao 3475MK881897MK881787[33]
Luteoporia albomarginataDai 15229KU598873KU598878[34]
L. albomarginataGC 1702-1LC379003LC379155[35]
L. citriniporiaDai 19507MT872218MT872216[36]
L. citriniporiaDai 19622MT872219MT872217[36]
L. luteaCHWC 1506-68MZ636997MZ637157[3]
L. luteaGC 1409-1MZ636998MZ637158[3]
Mycoacia aureaDLL 2011263KJ140747[1]
M. aureaRLG-5075-SpKY948759MZ637161[2,3]
M. aureaDLL2011_100KJ140614[37]
M. fuscoatraHHB 15354TKP135367[26]
M. cf. kurilensisWEI 18-312MZ637001MZ637162[3]
M. cf. kurilensisWEI 18-324MZ637002MZ637163[3]
M. fuscoatraKHL 13275JN649352JN649352[21]
M. nothofagiHHB 12067KP135370[26]
M. nothofagiKHL 13750GU480000GU480000[21]
Mycoaciella bisporaEL13_99AY586692[38]
M. efibulataWEI 19-057MZ637012MZ637172[3]
M. efibulataWEI 16-172MZ637011MZ637171[3]
Odoria alborubescensBP106943MG097864MG097867[39]
O. alborubescensBRNU 627479JQ821319JQ821318[40]
Pappia fissilis814HQ728291HQ729001[41]
P. fissilisBRNM 699803HQ728292HQ729002[41]
Phlebia acanthocystisKUC20131001-33KJ668484KJ668337[26]
P. acanthocystisFP150571KY948767KY948844[2]
P. acerinaFD 301KP135378[2]
P. acerinaHHB 11146KP135372[26]
P. austroasianaDai 17556ON135439ON135443Present study
P. austroasianaE8898AKJ654590[42]
P. brevisporaHHB 7030KP135387[26]
P. brevisporaFBCC1463LN611135LN611135[43]
P. floridensisHHB 7175KP135384[26]
P. floridensisHHB-9905-SpKP135383KP135264[26]
P. fuscotuberculataCLZhao 10227MT020759MT020737[27]
P. fuscotuberculataCLZhao 10239MT020760MT020738[27]
P. hydnoideaHHB-1993-SpKY948778KY948853[2]
P. lindtneriGB-1027AB210076[44]
P. lindtneriGB-501KY948772KY948847[2]
P. ludovicianaHHB-8715-SpKY948770KY948846[2]
P. ludovicianaFD-427KP135342[26]
P. nantahaliensisHHB-2816-SpKY948777KY948852[2]
P. radiataCBS 285.56MH857642MH869187[30]
P. radiataAFTOL-484AY854087AF287885[25]
P. radiataUBC: F19726HQ604797HQ604797[1]
P. rufaFBCC297LN611092LN611092[43]
P. rufaHHB-14924KP135374[26]
P. serialisFCUG 2868HQ153429[32]
P. serialisUC2023146KP814195[33]
P. setulosaPH 11749GU461312[1]
P. setulosaHHB-6891-SpKP135382KP135267[26]
P. setulosaAH31879GQ259417GQ259417[45]
P. subochracea IKGN 162/95EU118656EU118656[46]
P. subochracea IIFBCC295LN611116LN611116[43]
P. subochracea IIHHB-8494-SpKY948768KY948845[2]
P. tomentopileataCLZhao 9563MT020765MT020743[27]
P. tomentopileataCLZhao 9515MT020764MT020742[27]
P. tremellosaES 20082JX109859JX109859[1]
P. tremellosaCBS 217.56MH857589MH869138[30]
Phlebiporia bubalinaDai 13168KC782526KC782528[47]
P. bubalinaDai 15179KY131843KY131902[48]
Sarcodontia udaFP-101544-SpKP135361KP135232[26]
Sarcodontia udaUSDA Kropp 1KY948764[2]
Scopuloides hydnoidesFP-150473KP135355KP135284[26]
S. hydnoidesWEI 17-569MZ637085MZ637283[3]
Stereophlebia tuberculataFCUG 3157HQ153427[32]
S. tuberculataWu 1708-107MZ637089MZ637286[3]
New sequences are in bold.
Maximum Parsimony analysis was applied to the ITS + nLSU dataset sequences. The approaches to phylogenetic analysis utilized those conducted by Chen and Cui [47], and the tree was constructed using PAUP* version 4.0 beta 10 [49]. All the characters were equally weighted, and gaps were treated as missing data. Trees were inferred using the heuristic search option with tree bisection and reconnection (TBR) branch swapping, and 1000 random sequence addition maxtrees were set to 5000. Branches of zero length were collapsed, and all the parsimonious trees were saved. Clade robustness was assessed using a bootstrap (BT) analysis with 1000 replicates [50]. Descriptive tree statistics, including the Consistency Index (CI), Homoplasy Index (HI), Rescaled Consistency index (RC), Retention Index (RI), and tree length (TL), were calculated for each Maximum Parsimonious Tree (MPT) generated.
The research using ML was conducted using RAxML-HPC v. 8.2.3 [51] and RAxML-HPC through the CIPRES Science Gateway ([52]; http://www.phylo.org, accessed on 18 April 2022). Statistical support values (BS) were obtained using nonparametric bootstrapping with 1000 replicates. The BI analysis was performed with MrBayes 3.2.7a [53]. Four Markov chains were run for two runs from random starting trees for 3 million generations until the split deviation frequency value < 0.01, and the trees were sampled at every 1000 generation. The first 25% of the sampled trees were discarded as burn-in, and the remaining ones were used to reconstruct a majority rule consensus tree and calculate the Bayesian Posterior Probabilities (BPP) of the clades.
A total of 24 models of evolution were scored using PAUP* version 4.0 beta 10 [49]. Optimal substitution models for the combined dataset were then determined using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) implemented in MrModeltest 2.3 [54,55]. The model GTR + I + G was selected for use in the Maximum Likelihood (ML) and Bayesian Inference (BI) analyses.
Branches that received bootstrap support for Maximum Likelihood (BS), Maximum Parsimony (BP), and Bayesian Posterior Probabilities (BPP) > 75% (BS), 50% (BP), and 0.9 (BPP) were considered to be significantly supported. In addition, the ML analysis resulted in the best tree, and only the ML tree is shown along with the support values from the MP and BI analyses. FigTree v1.4.4 [56] was used to visualize the resulting tree.

3. Results

3.1. Phylogenetic Analyses

The combined ITS + nLSU dataset included sequences from 110 specimens representing 61 taxa (Table 1). The dataset had an aligned length of 2349 characters, of which 1503 were constant, 195 were variable but parsimony-uninformative, and 651 were parsimony-informative. MP analysis yielded nine equally parsimonious trees (TL = 3586, CI = 0.377, RI = 0.752, RC = 0.283, HI = 0.623). The best model for the ITS + nLSU dataset estimated and applied in the Bayesian analysis was GTR + I + G. Bayesian analysis and MP analysis resulted in a similar topology to the ML analysis, with an average standard deviation of split frequencies of 0.006112 (BI).
The phylogeny (Figure 1) inferred from the ITS and nLSU sequences demonstrated that the new species, Hermanssonia fimbriata and Phlebia austroasiana, clustered into the genera Hermanssonia and Phlebia, respectively. Hermanssonia fimbriata grouped with H. centrifuga with strong support (100% BS, 100% BP, and 1.00 BPP, Figure 1) and Phlebia austroasiana grouped with Ph. brevispora Nakasone with strong support (92% BP, 97% BS, 1.00 BPP, Figure 1).

3.2. Taxonomy

1.
Hermanssoniafimbriata Z.B. Liu & Y.C. Dai, sp. Nov. (Figure 2A,B and Figure 3)
MycoBank number: MB 844038.
Diagnosis—Hermanssonia fimbriata is characterized by annual, resupinate basidiomata, a monomitic hyphal system with clamp connections, the absence of cystidia and cystidioles, and basidiospores which are oblong ellipsoid, hyaline, thin-walled, smooth, IKI–, CB–, and 5–6 × 2.4–3 μm. Its basidiomata change drastically upon drying, from being a light-coloured, juicy, papillose-to-wrinkled hymenophore, to a dark-coloured, corky-to-gelatinous, and more or less smooth hymenophore.
Etymology—Fimbriata (Lat.): refer to the species having fimbriate margin.
Type—China. Tibet, Linzhi, Milin County, Nanyi Valley, ca. 94°22′E, 29°37′N, elev. 3000 m, on rotten wood of Picea, 22 October 2021, Dai 23266 (BJFC 037837).
Basidiomata—Annual, resupinate, adnate, when fresh ceraceous and salmon (6A4) when juvenile, gelatinous, darkening to pale mouse grey (7C2) to light vinaceous grey (13B2/3) when mature, becoming corky, salmon (6A4) and reddish brown (8/9E7) upon drying, first as small colonies, later confluent up to 10 cm or more in the longest dimension, 4 cm in the widest dimension, and less than 0.1 mm thick at center when dry; hymenial surface irregularly papillose and partly radially or unevenly wrinkled; margin white and fimbriate; subiculum very thin to almost absent.
Hyphal structure—Hyphal system monomitic; generative hyphae with clamp con-nections, IKI–, CB–; tissue unchanged in KOH.
Subiculum—Generative hyphae hyaline, thin- to thick-walled, smooth, rarely branched, loosely interwoven, 2–4 μm in diam.
Hymenium—Generative hyphae in subhymenium hyaline, thin-walled, smooth, oc-casionally branched, loosely interwoven, 1.5–3 μm in diam; cystidia and cystidioles ab-sent; basidia clavate, hyaline, bearing four sterigmata and a basal clamp connection, 25–30 × 5–6 μm; basidioles in shape similar to basidia, but slightly shorter.
Basidiospores—Ellipsoid to oblong ellipsoid, hyaline, thin-walled, smooth, IKI–, CB–, (4.5–) 5–6 × (2.2–) 2.4–3 μm, L = 5.51 μm, W = 2.78 μm, Q = 1.88–2.04 (n = 60/2).
Additional specimens (paratypes) examined—China. Tibet, Linzhi, Milin County, Nanyi Valley, ca. 94°22′E, 29°37′N, elev. 3000 m, on rotten wood of Picea, 22 October 2021, Dai 23305 (BJFC 037876), Dai 23306 (BJFC 037877).
2.
Phlebia austroasiana Z.B. Liu & Y.C. Dai, sp. Nov. Figure 2C and Figure 4
MycoBank number: MB 844039.
Diagnosis—Phlebia austroasiana is characterized by annual, resupinate basidiomata, a hymenophore with spines, 2–3 spines per mm, a monomitic hyphal system with clamp connections, the presence of tubular cystidia of 20–25 × 3–3.5 µm, and basidiospores which are oblong ellipsoid, hyaline, thin-walled, smooth, IKI–, CB–, 4.4–5.2 × 2.1–3 μm.
Etymology—Austroasiana (Lat.): refer to the species which is distributed in southeast Asia.
Type—China. Yunnan Province, Jinghong, Primeval Forest Park, ca. 100°52′E, 22°01′N, elev. 763 m, on angiosperm stump, 17 June 2017, Dai 17556 (BJFC 025088).
Basidiomata—Annual, resupinate, tightly adnate, gelatinous when dry, up to 5 cm long, 4 cm wide; hymenophore hydnoid, clay buff (6D4) when dry, not cracked; margin indistinct; spines crowded, clay buff (6D4), subulate, mostly separated, rarely fused, up to 2 mm long, 2–3 per mm at the base. Subiculum white, very thin to almost absent.
Hyphal structure—Hyphal system monomitic; generative hyphae with clamp con-nections, IKI–, CB–; tissue unchanged in KOH.Spines—Generative hyphae in spine trama hyaline, thin-walled, smooth, frequently branched, loosely interwoven, 2–3.5 μm in diam; cystidia tubular, thin-walled, with a basal clamp connection, 20–25 × 3–3.5 µm; cystidioles absent; basidia clavate, hyaline, bearing four sterigmata and a basal clamp connection, 18–26 × 4–5 μm; basidioles in shape similar to basidia, but slightly shorter.
Basidiospores—Ellipsoid to oblong ellipsoid, hyaline, thin-walled, smooth, IKI–, CB–, (4.1–)4.4–5.2 × (2–)2.1–3 μm, L = 4.86 μm, W = 2.53 μm, Q = 1.92 (n = 60/1).

4. Discussion

Chen et al. [3] divided the taxa of Meruliaceae into four clades: the core Phlebia clade, the Hydnophlebia clade, the Mycoacia clade, and the Sarcodontia clade. Two new species, Hermanssonia fimbriata and Phlebia austroasiana, are described in this study, based on morphological characters and phylogenetic analyses. Phylogenetically, they are nested in the core Phlebia clade, based on the ITS + nLSU sequence data (Figure 1).
Phylogenetically, three specimens of Hermanssonia fimbriata formed a lineage with strong support (100% BS, 100% BP, and 1.00 BPP, Figure 1) and grouped with H. centrifuga with strong support (100% BS, 100% BP, and 1.00 BPP). Both species share annual, resupinate basidiomata, a monomitic hyphal system, generative hyphae with clamp connections, thin-walled, IKI–, CB– basidiospores, and growth on rotten gymnosperm wood [57]. Hermanssonia fimbriata can be distinguished from H. centrifuga by its shorter basidiospores (5–6 × 2.4–3 µm vs. 6.5–9 × 2.5–3 µm, [57]). Hermanssonia centrifuga was described as Phlebia centrifuga P. Karst. from Finland [58], and an Asian taxon, Phlebia macra Litsch., was described from Siberia [59]. The latter was treated as a synonym of Ph. centrifuga [60]. Phlebia macra differs from Hermanssonia fimbriata by larger basidiospores (6–7.5 × 3–3.2 µm vs. 5–6 × 2.4–3 µm, [59]). Morphologically, H. fimbriata is similar to Phlebia coccineofulva Schwein., Ph. femsjoeensis (Litsch. & S. Lundell) J. Erikss. & Hjortstam, and Ph. radiata. These four species share the phlebioid hymenophore, but the last three species have cystidia, while cystidia are absent in Hermanssonia fimbriata. Above all, basidiospores of H. fimbriata are larger than that of Phlebia femsjoeensis (4–5 × 2–2.5 µm, [61]) and Ph. radiata (4–5 × 1.8–2 µm, [61]), but thinner than that of Ph. coccineofulva (2.8–3.5 µm in width, [61]). Hermanssonia fimbriata also resembles Phlebia subserialis (Bourdot & Galzin) Donk and Luteochaete subglobosa (Sheng H. Wu) C.C. Chen & Sheng H. Wu (=Phlebia wuliangshanensis C.L. Zhao) by the resupinate and ceraceous basidiomata when fresh, a monomitic hyphal system, and generative hyphae with clamp connections; however, cystidia are abundant in L. subglobosa and Phlebia subserialis, while cystidia are absent in Hermanssonia fimbriata. In addition, basidiospores of H. fimbriata are wider than that of Phlebia subserialis (2.4–3 µm vs. 2–2.5 µm, [61]), but thinner than that of Luteochaete subglobosa (2.4–3 µm vs. 3–3.7 µm, [5]). Hermanssonia remained a monotypic genus until the present paper which contributes the second species in the genus.
An ITS sequence KJ654590 of sample E8898A, named Phlebia sp. from GenBank, is almost identical to Dai 17556 in the ITS regions and the similarity between them is up to 99.65%. Hence, we believe the sample E8898A collected from Indonesia [42] represents the same species as our specimen (Dai 17556) collected from the Yunnan Province, China. Both samples were collected in tropical Asia, and formed a lineage with strong support (100% BS, 100% BP, and 1.00 BPP, Figure 1) in our phylogeny. Hence, Phlebia austroasiana is described based on these two samples. Ph. austroasiana is closely related to Ph. brevispora (92% BP, 97% BS, 1.00 BPP, Figure 1), however, morphologically, Ph. brevispora differs from Ph. austroasiana by its tuberculate hymenophore [62], while Ph. austroasiana has a hydnoid hymenophore. In addition, Ph. austroasiana is distinguished from Ph. brevispora by its larger basidiospores (4.4–5.2 × 2.1–3 µm vs. 4–4.5 × 2–2.5 µm, [62]). Morphologically, Ph. austroasiana is similar to Ph. capitata Bernicchia & Gorjón. in macromorphology, but the cystidia in Ph. capitata are capitate [61], while the cystidia in Ph. austroasiana are tubular. In addition, Ph. austroasiana is distinguished from Ph. capitata by its smaller basidiospores (4.4–5.2 × 2.1–3 µm vs. 5–5.5 × 2.5–3 μm, [61]).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.-C.D. and Z.-B.L.; methodology, Z.-B.L.; software, Z.-B.L.; validation, Z.-B.L., J.-L.Z. and V.P.; formal analysis, Z.-B.L.; investigation, Z.-B.L., Y.-C.D. and J.-L.Z.; resources, Y.-C.D.; data curation, Z.-B.L. and V.P.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.-B.L.; writing—review and editing, Y.-C.D.; visualization, Z.-B.L. and V.P.; supervision, Y.-C.D.; project administration, Y.-C.D.; funding acquisition, Y.-C.D. and V.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project Nos. 32161143013, U1802231), and the Second Tibetan Plateau Scientific Expedition and Research Program (STEP, Grant No. 2019QZKK0503).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The support of the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences to Viktor Papp is highly appreciated.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Binder, M.; Hibbett, D.S.; Larsson, K.H.; Larsson, E.; Langer, E.; Langer, G. The phylogenetic distribution of resupinate forms across the major clades of mushroom-forming fungi (Homobasidiomycetes). Syst. Biodivers. 2005, 3, 113–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Justo, A.; Miettinen, O.; Floudas, D.; Ortiz-Santana, B.; Sjökvist, E.; Lindner, D.; Nakasone, K.K.; Niemelä, T.; Larsson, K.H.; Ryvarden, L. A revised family-level classification of the Polyporales (Basidiomycota). Fungal Biol. 2017, 121, 798–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Chen, C.C.; Chen, C.Y.; Wu, S.H. Species diversity, taxonomy and multi-gene phylogeny of phlebioid clade (Phanerochaetaceae, Irpicaceae, Meruliaceae) of Polyporales. Fungal Divers. 2021, 111, 337–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Fries, E.M. Epicrisis systematis mycologici, seu Synopsis Hymenomycetum. xiv, 610. Syst. Mycol. 1821, 1, 1838. [Google Scholar]
  5. Huang, R.X.; Luo, K.Y.; Zhao, C.L. Phlebia nigrodontea sp. nov. in Meruliaceae (Polyporales) with a black hymenial surface. Phytotaxa 2020, 458, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. de Sousa Lira, C.R.; Chikowski, R.d.S.; de Lima, V.X.; Gibertoni, T.B.; Larsson, K.H. Allophlebia, a new genus to accomodate Phlebia ludoviciana (Agaricomycetes, Polyporales). Mycol. Prog. 2022, 21, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zmitrovich, I.V. Conspectus systematis Polyporacearum v. 1.0. Folia Cryptogam. Petropolitana 2018, 6, 3–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wu, F.; Zhou, L.W.; Vlasák, J.; Dai, Y.C. Global diversity and systematics of Hymenochaetaceae with poroid hymenophore. Fungal Divers. 2022, 113, 1–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Petersen, J.H. Farvekort. The Danish Mycological Society’s Colour-Chart; Foreningen til Svampekundskabens Fremme: Greve, Italy, 1996; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  10. Thiers, B. Index Herbariorum: A Global Directory of Public Herbaria and Associated Staff; New York Botanical Garden’s Virtual Herbarium: New York, NY, USA, 2018; Available online: http://sweetgum.nybg.org/science/ih/ (accessed on 15 January 2021).
  11. Li, H.J.; Cui, B.K.; Dai, Y.C. Taxonomy and multi-gene phylogeny of Datronia (Polyporales, Basidiomycota). Persoonia 2014, 32, 170–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. White, T.J.; Bruns, T.; Lee, S.; Taylor, J. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In PCR Protocols: A Guide to Methods and Applications; Innis, M.A., Gefand, D.H., Sninsky, J.J., White, J.T., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1990; pp. 315–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Vilgalys, R.; Hester, M. Rapid genetic identification and mapping of enzymatically amplified ribosomal DNA from several Cryptococcus species. J. Bacteriol. 1990, 172, 4238–4246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Zhao, C.L.; Cui, B.K.; Song, J.; Dai, Y.C. Fragiliporiaceae, a new family of Polyporales (Basidiomycota). Fungal Divers. 2015, 70, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Katoh, K.; Rozewicki, J.; Yamada, K.D. MAFFT online service: Multiple sequence alignment, interactive sequence choice and visualization. Brief. Bioinform. 2019, 20, 1160–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Hall, T.A. Bioedit: A user–friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symp. Ser. 1999, 41, 95–98. [Google Scholar]
  17. Maddison, W.P.; Maddison, D.R. Mesquite: A Modular System for Evolutionary Analysis. Version 3.70. Available online: https://www.mesquiteproject.org/ (accessed on 18 April 2022).
  18. Ginns, J.; Lindner, D.L.; Baronia, T.J.; Ryvarden, L. Aurantiopileus mayanensis a new genus and species of polypore (Polyporales, Basidiomycota) from Belize with connections to existing Asian species. N. Am. Fungi 2010, 5, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Zhao, C.L.; Wu, F.; Liu, H. A phylogenetic and taxonomic study on Ceriporiopsis s. str. (Polyporales) in China. Nova Hedwig. 2015, 101, 403–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhao, C.L.; Cui, B.K. Phylogeny and taxonomy of Ceriporiopsis (Polyporales) with descriptions of two new species from southern China. Phytotaxa 2014, 164, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Tomšovský, M.; Menkis, A.; Vasaitis, R. Phylogenetic relationships in European Ceriporiopsis species inferred from nuclear and mitochondrial ribosomal DNA sequences. Fungal Biol. 2010, 114, 350–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhao, C.L.; Wu, Z.Q. Ceriporiopsis kunmingensis sp. nov. (Polyporales, Basidiomycota) evidenced by morphological characters and phylogenetic analysis. Mycol. Prog. 2017, 16, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhao, C.L.; Ren, G.J.; Wu, F. A new species of Hyphodermella (Polyporales, Basidiomycota) with a poroid hymenophore. Mycoscience 2017, 58, 452–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Vlasák, J.; Vlasák, J., Jr.; Ryvarden, L. Four new polypore species from the western United States. Mycotaxon 2012, 119, 217–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lutzoni, F.; Kauff, F.; Cox, C.J.; McLaughlin, D.; Celio, G.; Dentinger, B.; Padamsee, M.; Hibbett, D.; James, T.Y.; Baloch, E.; et al. Assembling the fungal tree of life: Progress, classification, and evolution of subcellular traits. Am. J. Bot. 2004, 91, 1446–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Floudas, D.; Hibbett, D.S. Revisiting the taxonomy of Phanerochaete (Polyporales, Basidiomycota) using a four gene dataset and extensive ITS sampling. Fungal Biol. 2015, 119, 679–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Huang, R.X.; Zhao, C.L. Three new species of Phlebia (Polyporales, Basidiomycota) based on the evidence from morphology and DNA sequence data. Mycol. Prog. 2020, 19, 753–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jang, Y.; Jang, S.; Lee, J.; Lee, H.; Lim, Y.W.; Kim, C.; Kim, J.J. Diversity of wood-inhabiting polyporoid and corticioid fungi in Odaesan National Park, Korea. Mycobiology 2016, 44, 217–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Westphalen, M.C.; Rajchenberg, M.; Tomšovský, M.; Gugliotta, A.M. A re-evaluation of Neotropical Junghuhnia s. lat. (Polyporales, Basidiomycota) based on morphological and multigene analyses. Pers. Mol. Phylogeny Evol. Fungi 2018, 41, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Vu, D.; Groenewald, M.; De Vries, M.; Gehrmann, T.; Stielow, B.; Eberhardt, U.; Verkley, G.J.M. Large-scale generation and analysis of filamentous fungal DNA barcodes boosts coverage for kingdom fungi and reveals thresholds for fungal species and higher taxon delimitation. Stud. Mycol. 2019, 92, 135–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Shen, S.; Ma, X.; Xu, T.M.; Zhao, C.L. Phlebia ailaoshanensis sp. nov. (Polyporales, Basidiomycota) evidenced by morphological characters and phylogenetic analyses. Phytotaxa 2018, 373, 184–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ghobad-Nejhad, M.; Hallenberg, N. Multiple evidence for recognition of Phlebia tuberculata, a more widespread segregate of Phlebia livida (Polyporales, Basidiomycota). Mycol. Prog. 2012, 11, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Huang, R.X.; Luo, K.Y.; Ma, R.X.; Zhao, C.L. Morphological and molecular identification of Phlebia wuliangshanensis sp. nov. in China. Mycotaxon 2020, 135, 103–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wu, F.; Yuan, Y.; Chen, J.J.; He, S.H. Luteoporia albomarginata gen. et sp. nov. (Meruliaceae, Basidiomycota) from tropical China. Phytotaxa 2016, 263, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Chen, C.C.; Wu, S.H.; Chen, C.Y. Hydnophanerochaete and two new genera of phanerochaetoid fungi (Polyporales, Basidiomycota) from East Asia. MycoKeys 2018, 39, 75–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Liu, Z.B.; Yuan, Y. Luteoporia citriniporia sp. nov. (Polyporales, Basidiomycota), evidenced by morphological characters and phylogenetic analysis. Phytotaxa 2020, 461, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Brazee, N.J.; Lindner, D.L.; D’Amato, A.W.; Fraver, S.; Forrester, J.A.; Mladeno, D.J. Disturbance and diversity of wood-inhabiting fungi: Effects of canopy gaps and downed woody debris. Biodivers. Conserv. 2014, 23, 2155–2172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Larsson, K.H.; Larsson, E.; Kõljalg, U. High phylogenetic diversity among corticioid homobasidiomycetes. Mycol. Res. 2004, 108, 983–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Papp, V.; Dima, B. New systematic position of Aurantiporus alborubescens (Meruliaceae, Basidiomycota), a threatened old-growth forest polypore. Mycol. Prog. 2017, 17, 319–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dvořák, D.; Běťák, J.; Tomšovský, M. Aurantiporus alborubescens (Basidiomycota, Polyporales)–first record in the Carpathians and notes on its systematic position. Czech Mycol. 2014, 66, 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Tomšovský, M. Delimitation of an almost forgotten species Spongipellis litschaueri (Polyporales, Basidiomycota) and its taxonomic position within the genus. Mycol. Prog. 2012, 11, 415–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Glen, M.; Yuskianti, V.; Puspitasari, D.; Francis, A.; Agustini, L.; Rimbawanto, A.; Indrayadi, H.; Gafur, A.; Mohammed, C.L. Identification of basidiomycete fungi in Indonesian hardwood plantations by DNA barcoding. For. Pathol. 2014, 44, 496–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kuuskeri, J.; Mäkelä, M.R.; Isotalo, J.; Oksanen, I.; Lundell, T. Lignocellulose-converting enzyme activity profiles correlate with molecular systematics and phylogeny grouping in the incoherent genus Phlebia (Polyporales, Basidiomycota). BMC Microbiol. 2015, 15, 217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Kamei, I.; Suhara, H.; Kondo, R. Phylogenetical approach to isolation of white-rot fungi capable of degrading polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2005, 69, 358–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Moreno, G.; Blanco, M.N.; Checa, J.; Platas, G.; Peláez, F. Taxonomic and phylogenetic revision of three rare irpicoid species within the Meruliaceae. Mycol. Prog. 2011, 10, 481–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Larsson, K.H. Re-thinking the classification of corticioid fungi. Mycol. Res. 2007, 111, 1040–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Chen, J.J.; Cui, B.K. Phlebiporia bubalina gen. et. sp. nov. (Meruliaceae, Polyporales) from Southwest China with a preliminary phylogeny based on rDNA sequences. Mycol. Prog. 2014, 13, 563–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wu, F.; Chen, J.J.; Ji, X.H.; Vlasák, J.; Dai, Y.C. Phylogeny and diversity of the morphologically similar polypore genera Rigidoporus, Physisporinus, Oxyporus, and Leucophellinus. Mycologia 2017, 109, 749–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Swofford, D.L. PAUP: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony Version 4.0b10; Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, MA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  50. Felsenstein, J. Confidence intervals on phylogenetics: An approach using bootstrap. Evolution 1985, 39, 783–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Stamatakis, A. RAxML Version 8: A tool for phylogenetic analyses and post analyses of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 2014, 30, 1312–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Miller, M.A.; Holder, M.T.; Vos, R.; Midford, P.E.; Liebowitz, T.; Chan, L.; Hoover, P.; Warnow, T. The CIPRES Portals. CIPRES. Available online: http://www.phylo.org/sub_sections/portal (accessed on 4 August 2009).
  53. Ronquist, F.; Teslenko, M.; Mark, P.; Avres, D.L.; Darling, A.; Höhna, S.; Larget, B.; Liu, L.; Suchard, M.A.; Huelsenbeck, J.P. MrBayes3.2: Efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice, across a large model space. Syst. Biol. 2012, 61, 539–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Posada, D.; Crandall, K.A. Modeltest: Testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 1998, 14, 817–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Nylander, J.A.A. MrModeltest v2. Program Distributed by the Author; Evolutionary Biology Centre: Uppsala, Sweden, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  56. Rambaut, A. Molecular Evolution, Phylogenetics and Epidemiology. FigTree ver. 1.4.4 Software. Available online: http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/ (accessed on 18 April 2022).
  57. Salo, P.; Niemela, T.; Salo, U. Suomen Sieniopas; Kasvimuseo/WSOY: Helsinik, Finland, 2005; pp. 1–512. [Google Scholar]
  58. Karsten, P.A. Symbolae ad mycologiam Fennicam 8. Medd. Af Soc. Pro Fauna Et Flora Fenn. 1881, 6, 7–13. [Google Scholar]
  59. Pilát, A. Additamenta ad floram Sibiriae Asiaeque orientalis mycologicam. Pars Secunda. Bull. Trimest. Société Mycol. Fr. 1933, 49, 256–339. [Google Scholar]
  60. Cooke, W.B. The genus Phlebia. Mycologia 1956, 48, 386–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bernicchia, A.; Gorjón, S.P. Corticiaceae s.l. Fungi Europaei 12; Candusso Edizioni: Origgio, Italy, 2010; 1007p. [Google Scholar]
  62. Nakasone, K.K.; Eslyn, W.E. A new species, Phlebia brevispora, a cause of internal decay in utility poles. Mycologia 1981, 73, 803–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Phylogeny of Meruliaceae by MP analysis based on combined ITS and nLSU rDNA sequences. Branches are labelled with maximum likelihood bootstrap > 75%, parsimony bootstrap proportions > 50%, and Bayesian posterior probabilities > 0.9, respectively. New species are in bold.
Figure 1. Phylogeny of Meruliaceae by MP analysis based on combined ITS and nLSU rDNA sequences. Branches are labelled with maximum likelihood bootstrap > 75%, parsimony bootstrap proportions > 50%, and Bayesian posterior probabilities > 0.9, respectively. New species are in bold.
Jof 08 00501 g001
Figure 2. Basidiomata of Hermanssonia fimbriata and Phlebia austroasiana. (A) Juvenile basidiomata of Hermanssonia fimbriata (Holotype, Dai 23266). (B) Mature basidiomata of H. fimbriata (Paratype, Dai 23305). (C) Basidiomata of Phlebia austroasiana (Holotype, Dai 17556). Scale bars = 1.0 cm (A,B); 0.5 cm (C). Photo by: Yu-Cheng Dai (A,B) and Zhan-Bo Liu (C).
Figure 2. Basidiomata of Hermanssonia fimbriata and Phlebia austroasiana. (A) Juvenile basidiomata of Hermanssonia fimbriata (Holotype, Dai 23266). (B) Mature basidiomata of H. fimbriata (Paratype, Dai 23305). (C) Basidiomata of Phlebia austroasiana (Holotype, Dai 17556). Scale bars = 1.0 cm (A,B); 0.5 cm (C). Photo by: Yu-Cheng Dai (A,B) and Zhan-Bo Liu (C).
Jof 08 00501 g002
Figure 3. Microscopic structures of Hermanssonia fimbriata (Holotype, Dai 23266). (a) Basidiospores. (b) Basidia and basidioles. (c) Hyphae from subiculum. (d) Hyphae from subhymenium. Drawings by: Zhan-Bo Liu.
Figure 3. Microscopic structures of Hermanssonia fimbriata (Holotype, Dai 23266). (a) Basidiospores. (b) Basidia and basidioles. (c) Hyphae from subiculum. (d) Hyphae from subhymenium. Drawings by: Zhan-Bo Liu.
Jof 08 00501 g003
Figure 4. Microscopic structures of Phlebia austroasiana (Holotype, Dai 17556). (a) Basidiospores. (b) Basidia and basidioles. (c) Cystidia. (d) Hyphae from spine trama. Drawings by: Zhan-Bo Liu.
Figure 4. Microscopic structures of Phlebia austroasiana (Holotype, Dai 17556). (a) Basidiospores. (b) Basidia and basidioles. (c) Cystidia. (d) Hyphae from spine trama. Drawings by: Zhan-Bo Liu.
Jof 08 00501 g004
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liu, Z.-B.; Zhang, J.-L.; Papp, V.; Dai, Y.-C. Taxonomy and Phylogeny of Meruliaceae with Descriptions of Two New Species from China. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 501. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8050501

AMA Style

Liu Z-B, Zhang J-L, Papp V, Dai Y-C. Taxonomy and Phylogeny of Meruliaceae with Descriptions of Two New Species from China. Journal of Fungi. 2022; 8(5):501. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8050501

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Zhan-Bo, Jun-Li Zhang, Viktor Papp, and Yu-Cheng Dai. 2022. "Taxonomy and Phylogeny of Meruliaceae with Descriptions of Two New Species from China" Journal of Fungi 8, no. 5: 501. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8050501

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop