Search on : Taxa descriptions

 


 
 Add this item to the list   529591 NO1
   
Literature:
 
Page number:1093 
Remarks (internal):The sister taxa relationship between C. eremochloae and C. sublineola prompted us to examine further the appropriateness of designating C. sublineola S3.001 as an epitype for this name as proposed by Crouch et al (2006). C. sublineola S3.001 originally was collected in Burkina Faso from S. bicolor, close to the type locale of Togo in western Africa. This specimen possesses morphological features consistent with that of the type of C. sublineola. Because the type material of C. sublineola curated by BPI is abundant, destructive sampling for DNA extraction and molecular characterization was possible without diminishing the collection and provided a link between the 1902 specimen and modern collections. S3.001 and BPI399463 shared 99.69% nucleotide identity in sequenced regions, thereby confirming that strain S3.001 is a suitable epitype for C. sublineola.
Until 2009, C. sublineola was referred to as C. sublineolum, an orthographic variant that appears to originate from the treatments of Sutton beginning in 1980 (Sutton 1980, 1992). Investigations by Paul Kirk and Ken Hudson of the Index Fungorum databank (http://www.indexfungorum.org/) recognized that the epithet sublineolum was an incorrect variant of the originally published Latin epithet for the species, sublineola (P. Cannon pers comm). Since 2009, the original, correct epithet is now being applied in the literature, beginning with the publication of two review papers (Crouch and Beirn 2009, Hyde et al. 2009).
The source publication and author citation for C. sublineola has been the subject of some confusion. In his seminal 1980 treatment of the genus Colletotrichum, Sutton attributed C. sublineola to both Henn. ex Kabát & Bubák 1905 and Henn. ex Sacc. & Trotter 1913 (Sutton 1980). Most authors attribute C. sublineola to Henn. apud Kabát & Bubák 1905 (von Arx 1957, Crouch et al. 2006, Saccardo 1913), and while these treatments cited 1905 as the date of Kabát and Bubák's Fungi Imperfecti Exsiccati Century II, the distribution date for this set was 01 Dec 1904 (A. Rossman pers comm). Hyde et al. (2009) cited C. sublineola Henn. ex Sacc. & Trotter 1913 in the most recent overview of Colletotrichum names in current use. Recent entries in MycoBank and Index Fungorum also give the citation as C. sublineola Henn. ex Sacc. & Trotter 1913 (http://www.indexfungorum.org, http://www.mycobank.org). At the time of this writing, both databanks listed C. sublineola Henn. ex Kabát & Bubák 1904 as an invalid basionym, with the Index Fungorum referencing Article 32.1(d) of the ICBN code, which stipulates the requirement for a description in order for a taxa to be effectively published. However, the label to Kabát's and Bubák's Fungi Imperfecti Exsiccati No. 186 includes a detailed Latin description of C. sublineola, in compliance with Article 32.1 requirements of the nomenclatural code for pre-1953 taxa. Thus, attributing C. sublineola to Sacc. and Trotter (1913) is incorrect because the name was effectively published as C. sublineola Henn. in Kabát and Bubák (1904).
More problematic than the aforementioned discussion is the existence of an earlier legitimate synonym for the species, namely C. andropogonis Zimm. (Zimmerman 1904). C. andropogonis is a validly described fungal pathogen of S. bicolor of eastern African origin that was published in 1904, with distribution of the journal occurring at the end of Feb 1904 (G. Wade, Harvard Botany Libraries pers comm; Saccardo 1906, Zimmerman 1904), approximately 9 mo before the effective publication of C. sublineola in Dec 1904 (Kabát and Bubák 1904). In 1957, along with 35 additional graminicolous taxa, von Arx (1957) placed both C. andropogonis and C. sublineola in synonomy with C. graminicola, a species that is now known to be limited to Zea mays hosts (Crouch and Beirn 2009, Hyde 2009). Later, when Sutton (1980) separated C. sublineola from C. graminicola to distinguish the sorghum pathogen, it appears that he was unaware of C. andropogonis as an earlier name because he explicitly stated that only C. sublineola had been described from sorghum (Sutton 1980). However, based on shared morphology, host association and the low levels of variation observed from Colletotrichum associated with sorghum hosts sampled from wide geographic and temporal regions, C. sublineola and C. andropogonis appear to be synonyms of the same species.
While nomenclaturally correct, adoption of the little known and unused epithet C. andropogonis for the sorghum anthracnose pathogen is undesirable because the name C. sublineola is well established in the phytopathological literature of the past century. The fungus causes one of the most important diseases of sorghum, a crop that provides food for more than 300 000 000 people worldwide, with 90% of the crop grown in developing countries (Leder 2004). All literature on the sorghum anthracnose fungus, as an organism distinct from C. graminicola, refers to C. sublineola (Crouch and Beirn 2009, Crouch et al. 2006). In contrast, the literature surrounding C. andropogonis as a pathogen of sorghum is almost exclusively limited to the original description published more than 100 y ago. Moreover, application of C. andropogonis to describe a pathogen of sorghum is counterintuitive in that the name implies an association with host plants in the genus Andropogon, an association for which there is no evidence and appears unlikely. The epithet andropogonis was derived from Andropogon sorghum, the name by which S. bicolor was known before the segregation of the genus Sorghum from Andropogon in the early 20th century (Spangler 2003). Grasses in the genus Andropogon are hosts to C. caudatum, but acaudate-spored Colletotrichum such as C. sublineola have never been described from this host genus (Crouch and Beirn 2009, Hyde et al. 2009). We consequently have retained the well typified name C. sublineola in the present treatment of this taxa, listed C. andropogonis as a synonym, and have submitted a formal proposal for conservation of C. sublineola against C. andropogonis (J. Crouch unpubl).
 
Description type:Non-original description 
Description:Colletotrichum sublineola Henn., in Kabát and Bubák, Fungi Imperfecti Exs. Century II: No. 186 (1904) Figs. 1-3.
[= Colletotrichum andropogonis Zimm., Ber. über Land. und Forstwirth. Deutsch-Ostafrica 1:13 (1904).]
= Colletotrichum lineola var. halepense Heald & F.A. Wolf, U.S. Bur. Plant Ind. Bull. 226:51-52 (1912).
= Colletotrichum graminicola f. sp. sorghi Messiaen, Lafon & Molot, Annales des Epiphytes 10C(4):456 (1959).
= Colletotrichum graminicola var. zonatum Rajasab & Ramal, Curr. Sci. 50(1):34 (1981).
Mycobank MB529591
Similar to Colletotrichum eremochloae but differs based on fixed nucleotide differences at nuclear internal transcribed spacer region, Apn2, Apn2/ Mat1 and Sod2, when amplified and sequenced with PCR primers ITS4/ ITS5, Apn1W1F/ Apn1W1R, Mat1M72F/ Mat1M72F and SOD625F/ SOD625R respectively. Colonies on PDA circular, raised, at first dark gray, becoming light gray with age with concentric rings radiating from center of colony, aerial mycelium pale gray with or without visible conidia masses, with agar surrounding colony bright yellow. Conidia one-celled, falcate, sometimes fusiform with acute or rounded apices, smooth, hyaline, (14.0-)16.6-27.9(-32.2) x (3.8-)5.0- 7.0(-7.5) µm (mean = 24.4 x 5.9, S.D. 3.7, 1.1, n = 50). Setae absent. Sclerotia absent. Hyphal appressoria abundant in culture, medium to dark brown, globose to perprolate, ovoid, obovoid or clavate, smooth, lobate or multilobate, apices cylindrical or obtuse, edges irregular, 10.6-17.5(-22.5) x 7.9- 12.4(-17.2) µm (mean = 14.2 x 10.9, S.D. 1.7, 1.2, n = 50).
Type specimens: Lectotype designated here: Togo: Kibure: on fruit of Sorghum bicolor, 1902, P. Hennings (BPI399463). Epitype designated here: Burkina Fasso: isolated from Sorghum vulgare, collection date unknown, culture deposited in the Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures (CBS), Utrecht, the Netherlands (CBS 131301).
Additional specimens examined: Togo: Kibure: on fruit of Sorghum bicolor, 1902, P. Hennings (No. 186 , undistributed set of Kabát's and Bubák's (1904) Fungi Imperfecti Exsiccati Century II held by BPI; Paratype);
Habitat: Pathogenic to plants in the genus Sorghum Distribution: Worldwide
 
Taxon name: