taxonID	type	format	identifier	references	title	description	created	creator	contributor	publisher	audience	source	license	rightsHolder	datasetID
6258505AFFA18336F4E3FDE9FEF86B15.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/7077787/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7077787	FIGURE 5. Dothiorella obovata on dead twig of Pavonia odorata (holotype: MFLU 22-0094). a, b. Appearance of ascostromata on host surface. c, d. Section through ascomata. e. Section through peridium. f. Pseudoparaphyses. g–j. Asci. k–n. Ascospores. O. Germinating ascospore. p, q. Colony on PDA (p upper, q lower). Scale bars: a = 1 mm, b = 500 μm, c, d =100 μm, e, f = 10 μm, g–j = 20 μm, k–o = 5 μm.	FIGURE 5. Dothiorella obovata on dead twig of Pavonia odorata (holotype: MFLU 22-0094). a, b. Appearance of ascostromata on host surface. c, d. Section through ascomata. e. Section through peridium. f. Pseudoparaphyses. g–j. Asci. k–n. Ascospores. O. Germinating ascospore. p, q. Colony on PDA (p upper, q lower). Scale bars: a = 1 mm, b = 500 μm, c, d =100 μm, e, f = 10 μm, g–j = 20 μm, k–o = 5 μm.	2022-09-14	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth		Zenodo	biologists	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth			
6258505AFFA18336F4E3FDE9FEF86B15.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/7077777/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7077777	FIGURE 1. Phylogram generated from ML analysis based on combined dataset of ITS, LSU, tef1-α and β-tub. The tree is rooted to Neofusicoccum luteum (CMW 4165 and CBS 562.26). Tree topology is similar to the previous study by Zhang et al. (2021). Bootstrap support values for ML ≥ 70% and Bayesian posterior probabilities (PP) ≥ 0.90 are noted at the nodes. Strain numbers are noted after the species names. Strains isolated in this study are presented in red and type strains are in bold.	FIGURE 1. Phylogram generated from ML analysis based on combined dataset of ITS, LSU, tef1-α and β-tub. The tree is rooted to Neofusicoccum luteum (CMW 4165 and CBS 562.26). Tree topology is similar to the previous study by Zhang et al. (2021). Bootstrap support values for ML ≥ 70% and Bayesian posterior probabilities (PP) ≥ 0.90 are noted at the nodes. Strain numbers are noted after the species names. Strains isolated in this study are presented in red and type strains are in bold.	2022-09-14	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth		Zenodo	biologists	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth			
6258505AFFA38334F4E3FF5DFA77695D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/7077789/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7077789	FIGURE 6. Dothiorella albiziae on dead dry pod of Albizia lebbeck (holotype: MFLU 22-0093). a. Host. b, c. Conidiomata on dry pod surface. d. Vertical section through conidioma. e. Peridium of conidioma. f–i. Conidia attached to conidiogenous cells. j–m. Conidia. n, o. Colony on PDA (n upper, o lower). Scale bars: b = 2 mm, c = 500 μm, d = 100 μm, e–m = 10 μm.	FIGURE 6. Dothiorella albiziae on dead dry pod of Albizia lebbeck (holotype: MFLU 22-0093). a. Host. b, c. Conidiomata on dry pod surface. d. Vertical section through conidioma. e. Peridium of conidioma. f–i. Conidia attached to conidiogenous cells. j–m. Conidia. n, o. Colony on PDA (n upper, o lower). Scale bars: b = 2 mm, c = 500 μm, d = 100 μm, e–m = 10 μm.	2022-09-14	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth		Zenodo	biologists	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth			
6258505AFFA38334F4E3FF5DFA77695D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/7077777/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7077777	FIGURE 1. Phylogram generated from ML analysis based on combined dataset of ITS, LSU, tef1-α and β-tub. The tree is rooted to Neofusicoccum luteum (CMW 4165 and CBS 562.26). Tree topology is similar to the previous study by Zhang et al. (2021). Bootstrap support values for ML ≥ 70% and Bayesian posterior probabilities (PP) ≥ 0.90 are noted at the nodes. Strain numbers are noted after the species names. Strains isolated in this study are presented in red and type strains are in bold.	FIGURE 1. Phylogram generated from ML analysis based on combined dataset of ITS, LSU, tef1-α and β-tub. The tree is rooted to Neofusicoccum luteum (CMW 4165 and CBS 562.26). Tree topology is similar to the previous study by Zhang et al. (2021). Bootstrap support values for ML ≥ 70% and Bayesian posterior probabilities (PP) ≥ 0.90 are noted at the nodes. Strain numbers are noted after the species names. Strains isolated in this study are presented in red and type strains are in bold.	2022-09-14	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth		Zenodo	biologists	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth			
6258505AFFA38333F4E3FB67FD9C6C49.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/7077791/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7077791	FIGURE 7. Dothiorella sarmentorum on dead branch of Humulus lupulus (MFLU 19-0437). a, b. Conidiomata on branches of Humulus lupulus. c. Vertical section through conidioma. d. Peridium of conidioma. e–g. Conidia attached to conidiogenous cells. h, i. Conidia. j. Germinating conidium. l, m. Colony on PDA (l upper, m lower). Scale bars: a, b = 200 μm, c = 100 μm, d–j = 20 μm.	FIGURE 7. Dothiorella sarmentorum on dead branch of Humulus lupulus (MFLU 19-0437). a, b. Conidiomata on branches of Humulus lupulus. c. Vertical section through conidioma. d. Peridium of conidioma. e–g. Conidia attached to conidiogenous cells. h, i. Conidia. j. Germinating conidium. l, m. Colony on PDA (l upper, m lower). Scale bars: a, b = 200 μm, c = 100 μm, d–j = 20 μm.	2022-09-14	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth		Zenodo	biologists	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth			
6258505AFFA38333F4E3FB67FD9C6C49.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/7077777/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7077777	FIGURE 1. Phylogram generated from ML analysis based on combined dataset of ITS, LSU, tef1-α and β-tub. The tree is rooted to Neofusicoccum luteum (CMW 4165 and CBS 562.26). Tree topology is similar to the previous study by Zhang et al. (2021). Bootstrap support values for ML ≥ 70% and Bayesian posterior probabilities (PP) ≥ 0.90 are noted at the nodes. Strain numbers are noted after the species names. Strains isolated in this study are presented in red and type strains are in bold.	FIGURE 1. Phylogram generated from ML analysis based on combined dataset of ITS, LSU, tef1-α and β-tub. The tree is rooted to Neofusicoccum luteum (CMW 4165 and CBS 562.26). Tree topology is similar to the previous study by Zhang et al. (2021). Bootstrap support values for ML ≥ 70% and Bayesian posterior probabilities (PP) ≥ 0.90 are noted at the nodes. Strain numbers are noted after the species names. Strains isolated in this study are presented in red and type strains are in bold.	2022-09-14	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth		Zenodo	biologists	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth			
6258505AFFA68331F4E3FF5EFDFD683A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/7077777/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7077777	FIGURE 1. Phylogram generated from ML analysis based on combined dataset of ITS, LSU, tef1-α and β-tub. The tree is rooted to Neofusicoccum luteum (CMW 4165 and CBS 562.26). Tree topology is similar to the previous study by Zhang et al. (2021). Bootstrap support values for ML ≥ 70% and Bayesian posterior probabilities (PP) ≥ 0.90 are noted at the nodes. Strain numbers are noted after the species names. Strains isolated in this study are presented in red and type strains are in bold.	FIGURE 1. Phylogram generated from ML analysis based on combined dataset of ITS, LSU, tef1-α and β-tub. The tree is rooted to Neofusicoccum luteum (CMW 4165 and CBS 562.26). Tree topology is similar to the previous study by Zhang et al. (2021). Bootstrap support values for ML ≥ 70% and Bayesian posterior probabilities (PP) ≥ 0.90 are noted at the nodes. Strain numbers are noted after the species names. Strains isolated in this study are presented in red and type strains are in bold.	2022-09-14	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth		Zenodo	biologists	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth			
6258505AFFA6832EF4E3F9ECFD5A6FAC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/7077781/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7077781	FIGURE 2. Phylogram generated from ML analysis based on combined dataset of ITS, tef1-α and β-tub. The tree is rooted to Barriopsis stevensiana (CBS 174.26) and B. tectonae (MFLUCC 12-0381). Tree topology is similar to previous study conducted by Dissanayake et al. (2021). Bootstrap support values for ML ≥ 70% and Bayesian posterior probabilities (PP) ≥ 0.90 are noted at the nodes. Strain numbers are noted after the species names. Strains isolated in this study are presented in red and type strains are in bold.	FIGURE 2. Phylogram generated from ML analysis based on combined dataset of ITS, tef1-α and β-tub. The tree is rooted to Barriopsis stevensiana (CBS 174.26) and B. tectonae (MFLUCC 12-0381). Tree topology is similar to previous study conducted by Dissanayake et al. (2021). Bootstrap support values for ML ≥ 70% and Bayesian posterior probabilities (PP) ≥ 0.90 are noted at the nodes. Strain numbers are noted after the species names. Strains isolated in this study are presented in red and type strains are in bold.	2022-09-14	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth		Zenodo	biologists	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth			
6258505AFFB9832EF4E3FD79FC72650D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/7077793/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7077793	FIGURE 10. Sphaeropsis eucalypticola on dead branch of Tamarindus indica (MFLU 22-0095). a, b.Appearance of ascostromata on host surface. c, d. Sections through ascomata. e. Section through peridium. f. Pseudoparaphyses. g–j. Asci. k–p. Ascospores. Scale bars: a = 2 mm, b, c = 200 μm, d = 100 μm, e, f = 20 μm, g–j = 50 μm, k–p = 10 μm.	FIGURE 10. Sphaeropsis eucalypticola on dead branch of Tamarindus indica (MFLU 22-0095). a, b.Appearance of ascostromata on host surface. c, d. Sections through ascomata. e. Section through peridium. f. Pseudoparaphyses. g–j. Asci. k–p. Ascospores. Scale bars: a = 2 mm, b, c = 200 μm, d = 100 μm, e, f = 20 μm, g–j = 50 μm, k–p = 10 μm.	2022-09-14	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth		Zenodo	biologists	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth			
6258505AFFB9832EF4E3FD79FC72650D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/7077795/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7077795	FIGURE 11. Sphaeropsis eucalypticola on dead branch of Ficus ampelas (NCYUCC 19-0423). a, b. Appearance of ascostromata on host surface. c, d. Sections through ascomata. e. Section through peridium. f–h. Asci. i Ascospore. j. Germinating ascospore. k, l. Colony on PDA (k upper, l lower). Scale bars: a = 200 μm, b, c = 50 μm, d = 50 μm, e = 10 μm, f –h = 20 μm, i, j = 5 μm.	FIGURE 11. Sphaeropsis eucalypticola on dead branch of Ficus ampelas (NCYUCC 19-0423). a, b. Appearance of ascostromata on host surface. c, d. Sections through ascomata. e. Section through peridium. f–h. Asci. i Ascospore. j. Germinating ascospore. k, l. Colony on PDA (k upper, l lower). Scale bars: a = 200 μm, b, c = 50 μm, d = 50 μm, e = 10 μm, f –h = 20 μm, i, j = 5 μm.	2022-09-14	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth		Zenodo	biologists	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth			
6258505AFFB9832EF4E3FD79FC72650D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/7077781/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7077781	FIGURE 2. Phylogram generated from ML analysis based on combined dataset of ITS, tef1-α and β-tub. The tree is rooted to Barriopsis stevensiana (CBS 174.26) and B. tectonae (MFLUCC 12-0381). Tree topology is similar to previous study conducted by Dissanayake et al. (2021). Bootstrap support values for ML ≥ 70% and Bayesian posterior probabilities (PP) ≥ 0.90 are noted at the nodes. Strain numbers are noted after the species names. Strains isolated in this study are presented in red and type strains are in bold.	FIGURE 2. Phylogram generated from ML analysis based on combined dataset of ITS, tef1-α and β-tub. The tree is rooted to Barriopsis stevensiana (CBS 174.26) and B. tectonae (MFLUCC 12-0381). Tree topology is similar to previous study conducted by Dissanayake et al. (2021). Bootstrap support values for ML ≥ 70% and Bayesian posterior probabilities (PP) ≥ 0.90 are noted at the nodes. Strain numbers are noted after the species names. Strains isolated in this study are presented in red and type strains are in bold.	2022-09-14	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth		Zenodo	biologists	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth			
6258505AFFBC832BF4E3FD83FCE46B57.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/7077797/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7077797	FIGURE 12. Neodeightonia arengae on dead branch of Arenga tremula (NCYUCC 19-0419). a−c. Appearance of ascomata on host surface. d, e. Section of ascoma. f. Peridium. g. Pseudoparaphyses. h−k.Asci. l−n. Ascospores with a wing-like appendages (in water). o. Ascospore in 100% lactic acid. p, q. Colony on PDA (p upper, q lower). Scale bars: a = 1 mm, b = 500 μm, c–e = 100 μm, f = 5 μm, g–k = 20 μm, l–o = 10 μm.	FIGURE 12. Neodeightonia arengae on dead branch of Arenga tremula (NCYUCC 19-0419). a−c. Appearance of ascomata on host surface. d, e. Section of ascoma. f. Peridium. g. Pseudoparaphyses. h−k.Asci. l−n. Ascospores with a wing-like appendages (in water). o. Ascospore in 100% lactic acid. p, q. Colony on PDA (p upper, q lower). Scale bars: a = 1 mm, b = 500 μm, c–e = 100 μm, f = 5 μm, g–k = 20 μm, l–o = 10 μm.	2022-09-14	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth		Zenodo	biologists	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth			
6258505AFFBC832BF4E3FD83FCE46B57.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/7077783/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7077783	FIGURE 3. Phylogram generated from ML analysis based on combined dataset of ITS, LSU, SSU, and tef1-α. The tree is rooted to Diplodia mutila (CBS 112553) and D. rosulata (CBS 116470). Tree topology is similar to previous study conducted by Phukhamsakda et al. (2022). Bootstrap support values for ML ≥ 70% and Bayesian posterior probabilities (PP) ≥ 0.90 are noted at the nodes. Strain numbers are noted after the species names. Strains isolated in this study are presented in red and type strains are in bold.	FIGURE 3. Phylogram generated from ML analysis based on combined dataset of ITS, LSU, SSU, and tef1-α. The tree is rooted to Diplodia mutila (CBS 112553) and D. rosulata (CBS 116470). Tree topology is similar to previous study conducted by Phukhamsakda et al. (2022). Bootstrap support values for ML ≥ 70% and Bayesian posterior probabilities (PP) ≥ 0.90 are noted at the nodes. Strain numbers are noted after the species names. Strains isolated in this study are presented in red and type strains are in bold.	2022-09-14	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth		Zenodo	biologists	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth			
6258505AFFBC8328F4E3F95DFD976E2F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/7077799/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7077799	FIGURE 13. Neodeightonia phoenicum on dead leaf base of Phoenix reclinata (MFLU 22-0096). a, b. Host. c, d. Appearance of conidiomata on host surface. e. Section through conidiomata. f. Section through peridium. g–j. Conidiogenous cells. k−n. Conidia. o. Germinating conidium. p, q. Colony on PDA (p upper, q lower). Scale bars: c = 2 mm, d = 100 μm, e = 50 μm, f, g = 5 μm, h–o = 10 μm.	FIGURE 13. Neodeightonia phoenicum on dead leaf base of Phoenix reclinata (MFLU 22-0096). a, b. Host. c, d. Appearance of conidiomata on host surface. e. Section through conidiomata. f. Section through peridium. g–j. Conidiogenous cells. k−n. Conidia. o. Germinating conidium. p, q. Colony on PDA (p upper, q lower). Scale bars: c = 2 mm, d = 100 μm, e = 50 μm, f, g = 5 μm, h–o = 10 μm.	2022-09-14	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth		Zenodo	biologists	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth			
6258505AFFBC8328F4E3F95DFD976E2F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/7077783/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7077783	FIGURE 3. Phylogram generated from ML analysis based on combined dataset of ITS, LSU, SSU, and tef1-α. The tree is rooted to Diplodia mutila (CBS 112553) and D. rosulata (CBS 116470). Tree topology is similar to previous study conducted by Phukhamsakda et al. (2022). Bootstrap support values for ML ≥ 70% and Bayesian posterior probabilities (PP) ≥ 0.90 are noted at the nodes. Strain numbers are noted after the species names. Strains isolated in this study are presented in red and type strains are in bold.	FIGURE 3. Phylogram generated from ML analysis based on combined dataset of ITS, LSU, SSU, and tef1-α. The tree is rooted to Diplodia mutila (CBS 112553) and D. rosulata (CBS 116470). Tree topology is similar to previous study conducted by Phukhamsakda et al. (2022). Bootstrap support values for ML ≥ 70% and Bayesian posterior probabilities (PP) ≥ 0.90 are noted at the nodes. Strain numbers are noted after the species names. Strains isolated in this study are presented in red and type strains are in bold.	2022-09-14	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth		Zenodo	biologists	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth			
6258505AFFBF8326F4E3FB1AFD936C94.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/7077801/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7077801	FIGURE 14. Botryosphaeria fabicerciana on dead twig of Prunus serrulate (NCYUCC 19-0405). a, b. Appearance of ascostromata on host surface. c. Section through ascoma. d. Peridium. e. Pseudoparaphyses. f–h. Asci. i–l. Ascospores. m. Germinating ascospore. n, o. Colony on PDA (n upper, o lower). Scale bars: a = 500 μm, b, f–h = 50 μm, c = 100 μm, d, e, m = 20 μm, i–l = 10 μm.	FIGURE 14. Botryosphaeria fabicerciana on dead twig of Prunus serrulate (NCYUCC 19-0405). a, b. Appearance of ascostromata on host surface. c. Section through ascoma. d. Peridium. e. Pseudoparaphyses. f–h. Asci. i–l. Ascospores. m. Germinating ascospore. n, o. Colony on PDA (n upper, o lower). Scale bars: a = 500 μm, b, f–h = 50 μm, c = 100 μm, d, e, m = 20 μm, i–l = 10 μm.	2022-09-14	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth		Zenodo	biologists	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth			
6258505AFFBF8326F4E3FB1AFD936C94.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/7077785/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7077785	FIGURE 4. Phylogram generated from ML analysis basedon combined datasetof ITS, tef1-α and β-tub. The tree is rooted toMacrophomina phaseolina (CBS 227.33 and CBS 162.25). Tree topology is similar to previous study conducted by Rathnayaka et al. (2021). Bootstrap support values for ML ≥ 75% and Bayesian posterior probabilities (PP) ≥ 0.90 are noted at the nodes. Strain numbers are noted after the species names. The strain isolated in this study is presented in red and type strains are in bold.	FIGURE 4. Phylogram generated from ML analysis basedon combined datasetof ITS, tef1-α and β-tub. The tree is rooted toMacrophomina phaseolina (CBS 227.33 and CBS 162.25). Tree topology is similar to previous study conducted by Rathnayaka et al. (2021). Bootstrap support values for ML ≥ 75% and Bayesian posterior probabilities (PP) ≥ 0.90 are noted at the nodes. Strain numbers are noted after the species names. The strain isolated in this study is presented in red and type strains are in bold.	2022-09-14	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth		Zenodo	biologists	Rathnayaka, Achala R.;Chethana, K. W. Thilini;Phillips, Alan J. L.;Jones, E. B. Gareth			
