Author
Josef Hafellner
Bio: Josef Hafellner is an academic researcher from University of Graz. The author has contributed to research in topics: Lichen & Genus. The author has an hindex of 21, co-authored 67 publications receiving 2245 citations.
Topics: Lichen, Genus, Arthonia, Endococcus, Synonym (taxonomy)
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
Oregon State University1, Duke University2, Field Museum of Natural History3, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign4, Pennsylvania State University5, University of Graz6, University of Oslo7, University of Arizona8, Kaiserslautern University of Technology9, Harvard University10, Brandon University11, Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research12, University of Hamburg13, Free University of Berlin14
TL;DR: Pezizomycotina is the largest subphylum of Ascomycota and includes the vast majority of filamentous, ascoma-producing species, and the seven remaining classes formed a monophyletic group that corresponds to Leotiomyceta.
Abstract: Pezizomycotina is the largest subphylum of Ascomycota and includes the vast majority of filamen- tous, ascoma-producing species. Here we report the results from weighted parsimony, maximum likelihood and Bayesian phylogenetic analyses of five nuclear loci (SSU rDNA, LSU rDNA, RPB1, RPB2 and EF-1a) from 191 taxa. Nine of the 10 Pezizomycotina classes currently recognized were represented in the sam- pling. These data strongly supported the monophyly of Pezizomycotina, Arthoniomycetes, Eurotiomycetes, Orbiliomycetes and Sordariomycetes. Pezizomycetes and Dothideomycetes also were resolved as mono- phyletic but not strongly supported by the data. Lecanoromycetes was resolved as paraphyletic in parsimony analyses but monophyletic in maximum likelihood and Bayesian analyses. Leotiomycetes was polyphyletic due to exclusion of Geoglossaceae. The two most basal classes of Pezizomycotina were Orbilio- mycetes and Pezizomycetes, both of which comprise species that produce apothecial ascomata. The seven
343 citations
Duke University1, University of Graz2, University of Gdańsk3, Field Museum of Natural History4, University of Oslo5, King Juan Carlos University6, Kaiserslautern University of Technology7, Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research8, American Museum of Natural History9, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill10, Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University11, Harvard University12, Oregon State University13, University of Arizona14
TL;DR: The phylogenies confirm that ascus morphology cannot be applied consistently to shape the classification of lichen-forming fungi and conclude that a phylogenetic synthesis for a chosen taxonomic group should include a comprehensive assessment of phylogenetic confidence based on multiple estimates using different methods and on a progressive taxon sampling with an increasing number of taxa, even if it involves an increasing amount of missing data.
Abstract: The Lecanoromycetes includes most of the lichen-forming fungal species (>13 500) and is therefore one of the most diverse class of all Fungi in terms of phenotypic complexity. We report phylogeneti...
264 citations
Duke University1, Kaiserslautern University of Technology2, University of Helsinki3, Yale University4, University of Gdańsk5, University of British Columbia6, Complutense University of Madrid7, Lund University8, National University of Comahue9, University of Barcelona10, University of Oslo11, New York Botanical Garden12, Harvard University13, National Institutes of Health14, University of Liège15, Oregon State University16, University of Arizona17
TL;DR: A multigene phylogenetic synthesis of the Lecanoromycetes based on 642 newly generated and 3329 publicly available sequences revealing relatively stable relationships for many families and orders is provided.
237 citations
Field Museum of Natural History1, American Museum of Natural History2, University of California, Santa Cruz3, Complutense University of Madrid4, National Autonomous University of Mexico5, Saint Louis University6, University of Idaho7, Ramkhamhaeng University8, Charles Darwin Foundation9, Anadolu University10, Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh11, George Mason University12, Conservation International13, Australian National University14, University of Tromsø15, University of Minnesota16, Hungarian Academy of Sciences17, National University of the Northeast18, University of Koblenz and Landau19, Landcare Research20, University of Barcelona21, University of British Columbia22, University of Graz23, University of California, Riverside24, Oregon University System25, National Scientific and Technical Research Council26, University of the South Pacific27, University of Chicago28, University of Bergen29, Charles University in Prague30, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic31, Mahasarakham University32, University of Illinois at Chicago33, Universidad de Oriente34, University of Salzburg35, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute36, University of Hamburg37, University of Bradford38, University of Liège39, Goethe University Frankfurt40, University of Copenhagen41, King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang42, Khon Kaen University43, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences44, Natural History Museum45, University of Oslo46, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research47, University of Wisconsin-Madison48, Museum für Naturkunde49
TL;DR: A total of 100 new species of lichenized fungi are described, representing a wide taxonomic and geographic range, and emphasizing the dire need for taxonomic expertise in lichenology.
Abstract: The number of undescribed species of lichenized fungi has been estimated at roughly 10,000. Describing and cataloging these would take the existing number of taxonomists several decades; however, the support for taxonomy is in decline worldwide. In this paper we emphasize the dire need for taxonomic expertise in lichenology. We bring together 103 colleagues from institutions worldwide to describe a total of 100 new species of lichenized fungi, representing a wide taxonomic and geographic range. The newly described species are: Acarospora flavisparsa, A. janae, Aderkomyces thailandicus, Amandinea maritima, Ampliotrema cocosense, Anomomorpha lecanorina, A. tuberculata, Aspicilia mansourii, Bacidina sorediata, Badimia multiseptata, B. vezdana, Biatora epirotica, Buellia sulphurica, Bunodophoron pinnatum, Byssoloma spinulosum, Calopadia cinereopruinosa, C. editae, Caloplaca brownlieae, C. decipioides, C. digitaurea, C. magnussoniana, C. mereschkowskiana, C. yorkensis, Calvitimela uniseptata, Chapsa microspora, C. psoromica, C. rubropulveracea, C. thallotrema, Chiodecton pustuliferum, Cladonia mongkolsukii, Clypeopyrenis porinoides, Coccocarpia delicatula, Coenogonium flammeum, Cresponea ancistrosporelloides, Crocynia microphyllina, Dictyonema hernandezii, D. hirsutum, Diorygma microsporum, D. sticticum, Echinoplaca pernambucensis, E. schizidiifera, Eremithallus marusae, Everniastrum constictovexans, Fellhanera borbonica, Fibrillithecis sprucei, Fissurina astroisidiata, F. nigrolabiata, F. subcomparimuralis, Graphis caribica, G. cerradensis, G. itatiaiensis, G. marusa, Gyalideopsis chicaque, Gyrotrema papillatum, Harpidium gavilaniae, Hypogymnia amplexa, Hypotrachyna guatemalensis, H. indica, H. lueckingii, H. paracitrella, H. paraphyscioides, H. parasinuosa, Icmadophila eucalypti, Krogia microphylla, Lecanora mugambii, L. printzenii, L. xanthoplumosella, Lecidea lygommella, Lecidella greenii, Lempholemma corticola, Lepraria sekikaica, Lobariella sipmanii, Megalospora austropacifica, M. galapagoensis, Menegazzia endocrocea, Myriotrema endoflavescens, Ocellularia albobullata, O. vizcayensis, Ochrolechia insularis, Opegrapha viridipruinosa, Pannaria phyllidiata, Parmelia asiatica, Pertusaria conspersa, Phlyctis psoromica, Placopsis imshaugii, Platismatia wheeleri, Porina huainamdungensis, Ramalina hyrcana, R. stoffersii, Relicina colombiana, Rhizocarpon diploschistidina, Sticta venosa, Sagenidiopsis isidiata, Tapellaria albomarginata, Thelotrema fijiense, Tricharia nigriuncinata, Usnea galapagona, U. pallidocarpa, Verrucaria rhizicola, and Xanthomendoza rosmarieae. In addition, three new combinations are proposed: Fibrillithecis dehiscens, Lobariella botryoides, and Lobariella pallida.
215 citations
01 Jan 2001
198 citations
Cited by
More filters
Clark University1, National Institutes of Health2, Louisiana State University3, CABI4, Umeå University5, Field Museum of Natural History6, Duke University7, University of Minnesota8, University of Alabama9, Oregon State University10, Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures11, United States Department of Agriculture12, University of Tübingen13, Max Planck Society14, University of Florida15, Pennsylvania State University16, Aberystwyth University17, Complutense University of Madrid18, University of Oslo19, University of Hong Kong20, University of Tartu21, University of Gothenburg22, University of Kansas23, University of Maine24, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign25, Royal Ontario Museum26, Georgia State University27, Estonian University of Life Sciences28, Washington State University29, Nova Southeastern University30, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich31, University of Western Ontario32, Uppsala University33, Brandon University34, Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh35, State University of New York at Purchase36, Boise State University37, Cornell University38
TL;DR: A comprehensive phylogenetic classification of the kingdom Fungi is proposed, with reference to recent molecular phylogenetic analyses, and with input from diverse members of the fungal taxonomic community.
2,096 citations
University of Saskatchewan1, Dalhousie University2, University of Rhode Island3, Sewanee: The University of the South4, Natural History Museum5, New York State Department of Health6, University of British Columbia7, Kaiserslautern University of Technology8, Charles University in Prague9, University of Guelph10, Le Moyne College11, Georgia College & State University12, University of Colorado Boulder13, University of Geneva14, Edinburgh Napier University15, University of Arkansas16, Saint Petersburg State University17
TL;DR: This revision of the classification of eukaryotes retains an emphasis on the protists and incorporates changes since 2005 that have resolved nodes and branches in phylogenetic trees.
Abstract: This revision of the classification of eukaryotes, which updates that of Adl et al. [J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 52 (2005) 399], retains an emphasis on the protists and incorporates changes since 2005 that have resolved nodes and branches in phylogenetic trees. Whereas the previous revision was successful in re-introducing name stability to the classification, this revision provides a classification for lineages that were then still unresolved. The supergroups have withstood phylogenetic hypothesis testing with some modifications, but despite some progress, problematic nodes at the base of the eukaryotic tree still remain to be statistically resolved. Looking forward, subsequent transformations to our understanding of the diversity of life will be from the discovery of novel lineages in previously under-sampled areas and from environmental genomic information.
1,414 citations
Institut national de la recherche agronomique1, Broad Institute2, Wageningen University and Research Centre3, University of Salamanca4, University of Provence5, Utrecht University6, University of Nottingham7, SupAgro8, Kaiserslautern University of Technology9, University of Toronto10, La Trobe University11, University of Lyon12, Tel Aviv University13, National University of Mar del Plata14, Landcare Research15, University of Nice Sophia Antipolis16, University of Paris-Sud17, University of La Laguna18, University of Melbourne19, Agro ParisTech20, Andrés Bello National University21, University of Exeter22, Plant & Food Research23, Hebrew University of Jerusalem24, University of Florida25, Texas A&M University26
TL;DR: Comparative genome analysis revealed the basis of differing sexual mating compatibility systems between S. sclerotiorum and B. cinerea, and shed light on the evolutionary and mechanistic bases of the genetically complex traits of necrotrophic pathogenicity and sexual mating.
Abstract: Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and Botrytis cinerea are closely related necrotrophic plant pathogenic fungi notable for their wide host ranges and environmental persistence. These attributes have made these species models for understanding the complexity of necrotrophic, broad host-range pathogenicity. Despite their similarities, the two species differ in mating behaviour and the ability to produce asexual spores. We have sequenced the genomes of one strain of S. sclerotiorum and two strains of B. cinerea. The comparative analysis of these genomes relative to one another and to other sequenced fungal genomes is provided here. Their 38-39 Mb genomes include 11,860-14,270 predicted genes, which share 83% amino acid identity on average between the two species. We have mapped the S. sclerotiorum assembly to 16 chromosomes and found large-scale co-linearity with the B. cinerea genomes. Seven percent of the S. sclerotiorum genome comprises transposable elements compared to ,1% of B. cinerea. The arsenal of genes associated with necrotrophic processes is similar between the species, including genes involved in plant cell wall degradation and oxalic acid production. Analysis of secondary metabolism gene clusters revealed an expansion in number and diversity of B. cinerea-specific secondary metabolites relative to S. sclerotiorum. The potential diversity in secondary metabolism might be involved in adaptation to specific ecological niches. Comparative genome analysis revealed the basis of differing sexual mating compatibility systems between S. sclerotiorum and B. cinerea. The organization of the mating-type loci differs, and their structures provide evidence for the evolution of heterothallism from homothallism. These data shed light on the evolutionary and mechanistic bases of the genetically complex traits of necrotrophic pathogenicity and sexual mating. This resource should facilitate the functional studies designed to better understand what makes these fungi such successful and persistent pathogens of agronomic crops.
855 citations
TL;DR: New evidence is examined from various sources to derive an updated estimate of global fungal diversity, concluding that the commonly cited estimate of 1.5 million species is conservative and that the actual range is properly estimated at 2.2 to 3.8 million.
Abstract: The question of how many species of Fungi there are has occasioned much speculation, with figures mostly posited from around half a million to 10 million, and in one extreme case even a sizable portion of the spectacular number of 1 trillion. Here we examine new evidence from various sources to derive an updated estimate of global fungal diversity. The rates and patterns in the description of new species from the 1750s show no sign of approaching an asymptote and even accelerated in the 2010s after the advent of molecular approaches to species delimitation. Species recognition studies of (semi-)cryptic species hidden in morpho-species complexes suggest a weighted average ratio of about an order of magnitude for the number of species recognized after and before such studies. New evidence also comes from extrapolations of plant:fungus ratios, with information now being generated from environmental sequence studies, including comparisons of molecular and fieldwork data from the same sites. We further draw attention to undescribed species awaiting discovery in biodiversity hot spots in the tropics, little-explored habitats (such as lichen-inhabiting fungi), and material in collections awaiting study. We conclude that the commonly cited estimate of 1.5 million species is conservative and that the actual range is properly estimated at 2.2 to 3.8 million. With 120,000 currently accepted species, it appears that at best just 8%, and in the worst case scenario just 3%, are named so far. Improved estimates hinge particularly on reliable statistical and phylogenetic approaches to analyze the rapidly increasing amount of environmental sequence data.
759 citations
[...]
TL;DR: The Kingdom Fungi, home to molds, mushrooms, lichens, rusts, smuts and yeasts, comprises eukaryotes with remarkably diverse life histories that make essential contributions to the biosphere, human industry, medicine and research.
637 citations