Auricularia mesenterica. This
happens when we can't automatically assign an identification to one of the
output taxa.
Review identifications of Auricularia mesenterica 332467
Taxonomic Split 83597
(Submetido em 13-10-2020)
|
|
dividido em |
|
Comentários
No idea. It isn't a species we have.
I use just A. cornea in NZ because of quite a bit of sequencing suggesting we have just one species in the genus and an interpretation of the info in ...
https://openjournals.wsu.edu/index.php/pnwfungi/article/view/1126
OK - as usual I checked the available phylogenetic data.
brasiliana - 1 sequence
orientalis - 4 sequences
asiatica 3 sequences
pusio - 1 sequence
For Australia in this group there is just the single published pusio sequence. I also have an unpublished sequence from Queensland and it is A. asiatica, not pusio.
So, I'm not entirely convinced by the limited phylogenetic data, or the atlas for asiatica.
Hmm, okay. Interesting. I tried to use the sequences on Genbank. I can add asiatica to Australia; the effect will basically be the same as not having included pusio in the first place, all sequences will just get bumped up to Complex Auricularia mesenterica. This will happen to pretty much everything not in Europe at this point, except a couple things from Brazil, maybe. The "mesenterica" sequence from Costa Rica indicates there is probably another neotropical species, and there is another kind of different sequence from the Cook Islands, and the "pusio" sequence from Zambia. All very preliminary, though....
I think A. mesenterica complex is appropriate for Australia with this level of data.
OK - also just realized my NCBI download script is not downloading all sequences so my list above is wrong.
Okay, I was wondering.
@mattbarrett might be able to suggest how to deal with Australian Auricularia. The type of Auricularia pusio is indeed from Australia, but the name has not been applied recently in Australia (probably not at all since Berkeley's original description), so not sure where it fits.
There are at least two things in Australia currently called ‘mesenterica’. One is either asiatica or possibly a distint species. The other may be undescribed. But it would take detailed morphological studies and a study of the tupe of A. pusio to know where it fits. But the name pusio should be taken up when that is done / published.
Okay, I will inactivate pusio and remove it from this split.
@cooperj and @funkeytom does the atlasing for Australasia seem fine? I am basing that on the abstract I cited above (last source), a couple sequences on Genbank, and the fact that Berkeley did describe A. pusio from Australia.