Name: Armillaria montagnei (Singer) Herink
Most Confident Observations:
Copyright © 2012 Giuliana Furci (Giuliana)
Version: 2
Previous Version 


First person to use this name on MO: Nathan Wilson
Editors: walt sturgeon

Observations of:

this name (1)

this taxon, other names (0)

this taxon, any name (1)

other taxa, this taxon proposed (0)

any taxon, this name proposed (1)

Nomenclature:

Rank: Species

Status: Accepted

Name: Armillaria montagnei

Author: (Singer) Herink

Citation: Sympozium o Václavce Obecné Armillaria mellea (Vahl ex Fr.) Kumm. (Brno): 41 (1973)

Classification:

Domain: Eukarya

Kingdom: Fungi

Phylum: Basidiomycota

Class: Agaricomycetes

Order: Agaricales

Family: Physalacriaceae

Genus: Armillaria

Lifeform:
Brief Description: [See More | Edit]

This species is characterized by astringent basidiomes, with pilei heavily covered with squamules and the thick annulus covered by squamules, different from those of other taxa from the area. The spores’ Q value is higher than that of the other species from Patagonia. The specimens studied were similar to those of the original description (Singer 1956) and those reported by Wright and Deschamps (1972), Horak (1979), Valenzuela (1993) and Garrido (1988). The type material at LIL appears to have been lost, and a neotype for this species must be selected. We herein designate specimen BAFC51662 as the neotype for A. montagnei; other than presenting the typical morphological features of the species, its culture is kept in the CIEFAP and CMW culture collection and its ITS and LSU rDNA regions were incorporated in phylogenetic studies (Pildain et al. 2009). Specimens of A. luteobubalina from New Zealand and Australia (Podger et al. 1978) differed from A. montagnei in this study by having smaller spores, 6.5-7.5 × 4.5-5.5 µm (A. montagnei: 9.5-11 × 5.5-7 µm).
Strains of A. montagnei were treated in the “luteobubalina clade” by Pildain et al. (2009) as Lineage II. This clade had a substructure with two clades that corresponded to geographically different areas, one from Australia the other from southern Argentina. Both subclades are well supported, suggesting that they represent different taxa. We support the distinction of two taxa based on the correlation between phylogenetic and morphological data, principally differences in spore size. Also field observations and unpublished experimental data have shown that the Patagonian A. montagnei is not typically recovered from hosts showing severe symptoms of root disease as is known for A. luteobubalina (Podger et al. 1978). It is relevant that the description of A. montagnei predates that of A. luteobubalina; A. montagnei thus would have priority if all isolates in the clade were to be treated as a single species (Singer 1956, Podger et al. 1978).

http://www.mycobank.org/...

Descriptions: [Create]

Comments

Add Comment
No one has commented yet.
Number of users interested in this name: 0

Created: 2007-06-19 02:54:59 CDT (-0400) by Nathan Wilson (nathan)
Last modified: 2018-11-15 08:12:24 CST (-0500) by walt sturgeon (Mycowalt)
Viewed: 108 times, last viewed: 2020-09-11 16:01:30 CDT (-0400)
Show Log