identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
0397879FFC342903FF6498A0FA9CF906.text	0397879FFC342903FF6498A0FA9CF906.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Botryosphaeriaceae Theiss. & H.Syd.	<div><p>Review of  Botryosphaeriaceae species reported from  Arecaceae</p><p>Twenty-two genera are currently included in  Botryosphaeriaceae, viz.  Alanphillipsia,  Barriopsis,  Botryobambusa,  Botryosphaeria,  Cophinforma,  Diplodia,  Dothiorella,  Endomelanconiopsis,  Eutiarosporella,  Lasiodiplodia,  Macrophomina,  Marasasiomyces,  Mucoharknessia,  Neodeightonia,  Neofusicoccum,  Neoscytalidium,  Oblongocollomyces,  Phaeobotryon,  Sakireeta,  Sardiniella,  Sphaeropsis and  Tiarosporella (Yang et al. 2017, Wijayawardene et al. 2022). A search of the US National Fungus Collections Fungus-Host Database (Farr &amp; Rossman 2023) was conducted to reveal the reported associations between each  Botryosphaeriaceae genus and members of the family  Arecaceae . These were supplemented with additional reports from available literature on  Botryosphaeriaceae species reported from palms not covered by Farr &amp; Rossman (2023). About 60 species of  Botryosphaeriaceae were found to be associated with hosts in the family  Arecaceae . These species names were verified against MycoBank and Index Fungorum databases (Crous et al. 2004, Index Fungorum Partnership 2023) as well as the available literature, including the most recent overviews of the taxonomy of the family  Botryosphaeriaceae (e.g., Slippers et al. 2017, Yang et al. 2017, Phillips et al. 2019, Zhang et al. 2021a). Taking into account that some species are regarded as synonyms, including the data from this study, we can accept that 31 valid species are associated with  Arecaceae worldwide.</p><p>Reports of  Botryosphaeriaceae taxa collected from  Arecaceae hosts prior to the early 2000 should be considered unreliable, since the taxonomic concept of the family and respective genera was not clear until the first phylogenetic treatments of  Botryosphaeriaceae (e.g., Crous et al. 2006, Schoch et al. 2006) and subsequent revision and update studies (e.g., Phillips et al. 2013, 2019, Slippers et al. 2013, 2017, Yang et al. 2017, Zhang et al. 2021a). Thus, many of the early reports and respective host associations with  Arecaceae members could be misidentifications. Morphological characters have long been considered inadequate to define genera or identify species in  Botryosphaeriaceae, particularly given the confusion that they have repeatedly introduced in several lineages over the years (Phillips et al. 2013, Slippers et al. 2013, 2014, 2017). In this sense, currently valid  Botryosphaeriaceae species that were described on palms based solely on morphological data were disregarded, and comments on their exclusion from the present review are noted below. Table 5 lists all current accepted names of  Botryosphaeriaceae species associated with  Arecaceae, their respective hosts and countries from which they were recorded.</p><p>The following genera have not previously been reported from palm hosts:  Alanphillipsia,  Botryobambusa,  Cophinforma,  Dothiorella,  Eutiarosporella,  Marasasiomyces,  Mucoharknessia,  Neoscytalidium,  Oblongocollomyces,  Phaeobotryon,  Sakireeta,  Sardiniella and  Tiarosporella . Nevertheless, in the present study  D. viticola is reported from four palm species ( Chamaerops humilis,  Trachycarpus fortunei,  Phoenix roebelenii and  Washingtonia filifera) and  S. urbana is reported from  P. reclinata . Thus, currently only one species in each of the genera  Dothiorella,  Sardiniella, as well as  Barriopsis and  Endomelanconiopsis, have been reported from palm hosts (Table 5). Two species of  Macrophomina and  Sphaeropsis have been reported from palm hosts, but their identification was based solely on morphology. Thus, for the reasons detailed above, the valid name for these taxa cannot be confirmed and the reports were excluded from the list of  Botryosphaeriaceae species recorded on  Arecaceae .</p><p>Most  Botryosphaeriaceae species reported from palm hosts reside in the genera  Botryosphaeria,  Diplodia,  Lasiodiplodia,  Neodeightonia and  Neofusicoccum . Nonetheless, most of these species were identified based on morphological data and, for the reasons detailed above, they were disregarded in this analysis. Ten  Botryosphaeria species have been reported from palms, besides some unnamed reports, but only two ( B. dothidea and  B. fabicerciana) were based on both morphological and molecular data and are here considered. In the present study,  B. dothidea was recorded from  C. humilis, representing a new host record (Table 5). Concerning  Diplodia, 25 species have been reported from palms, besides some unnamed reports, but only three ( D. arengae,  D. laelio-cattleyae and  D. mutila) were based on both morphological and molecular data and are here considered. In the present study,  D. mutila has also been recorded from  P. dactylifera (Table 5). A total of nine  Lasiodiplodia species, besides some unnamed reports, have been reported from palms, and all of them have been reported based on both morphological and molecular data. For that reason, the nine species ( L. brasiliensis,  L. euphorbiaceicola,  L. hormozganensis,  L. iranensis,  L. lodoiceae,  L. mexicanensis,  L. pseudotheobromae,  L. subglobosa and  L. theobromae) are here considered (Table 5). Six  Neodeightonia species have been reported from palms based on morphological and phylogenetic data and are here considered ( N. licuriensis,  N. palmicola,  N. phoenicum,  N. rattanica,  N. rattanicola and  N. septata). In the present study, the new species  N. chamaeropicola collected from foliar lesions of  C. humilis is introduced and represent a new  Neodeightonia taxa from palms (Table 5). During a study aimed to identify the  Botryosphaeriaceae species associated with diseased symptomatic palms in Florida, a new species of  Neodeightonia has been noted by Elliot et al. (2018) based on phylogenetic analyses. Although this report was supported with molecular data, no morphological information was included, and the species remained unnamed and was simply regarded as  Neodeightonia sp. (Figure 4). Thus, this species was disregarded from the present listing of  Botryosphaeriaceae species reported from  Arecaceae . Three  Neofusicoccum species, supported with morpho-molecular data have been reported from palm hosts and are here considered ( N. brasiliense,  N. cryptoaustrale and  N. ribis). In this study, besides the report of  N. Cryptoaustrale from  C. humilis, three additional  Neofusicoccum species were isolated from foliar lesions of different palm hosts, representing new host records, namely  N. australe (from  P. canariensis),  N. luteum (from  C. humilis,  P. canariensis and  W. filifera) and  N. parvum (from  P. dactylifera and  P. roebelenii) (Table 5). Elliot et al. (2018) also reported an unidentified  Neofusicoccum species from  P. dactylifera in Florida based on phylogenetic analyses, but due to insufficient resolution of the combined ITS- tef1 dataset, the isolate was only regarded as  Neofusicoccum sp. Thus, this record was disregarded from the present listing of  Botryosphaeriaceae species reported from  Arecaceae .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0397879FFC342903FF6498A0FA9CF906	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Pereira, Diana S.;Phillips, Alan J. L.	Pereira, Diana S., Phillips, Alan J. L. (2023): Botryosphaeriaceae on palms-a new species of Neodeightonia, N. chamaeropicola, and new records from diseased foliage of ornamental palms in Portugal. Phytotaxa 627 (1): 1921-1935, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.627.1.1, URL: https://phytotaxa.mapress.com/pt/article/download/phytotaxa.627.1.1/51323
0397879FFC022934FF649FF5FA8DFA27.text	0397879FFC022934FF649FF5FA8DFA27.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Diplodia Fr., Annales	<div><p>Diplodia Fr., Annales des Sciences Naturelles Botanique 1: 302 (1834), MycoBank MB8047</p><p>Diplodia was introduced by Montagne (1834) with  D. mutila on bark of  Populus nigra from France. However, its taxonomic history has been confusing for many years, particularly due to the controversy surrounding the holotype and the characters that define the type species of the genus (Phillips et al. 2013). Alves et al. (2004) examined the isotype of  D. mutila and clarified the morphological status of the species and an emendment of the genus was later provided by Phillips et al. (2005). Since no ex-type, or authentic cultures, of any type specimen of  D. mutila exits, Alves et al. (2014) designated an epitype and ex-epitype culture based on a collection from  Populus alba in Portugal. Species in  Diplodia are characterized by hyaline, aseptate and thick-walled conidia that may become pigmented and 1-septate either after or before discharge from the pycnidia (Phillips et al. 2013). They have a worldwide distribution and are known as pathogens, endophytes and saprophytes on a wide range of mainly woody hosts (Damm et al. 2007, Slippers &amp; Wingfield 2007, Lazzizera et al. 2008, Laveau et al. 2009, Pérez et al. 2010, Phillips et al. 2012, Linaldeddu et al. 2013, Abdollahzadeh 2015). Some  Diplodia species are important pathogens causing cankers, dieback, wilt, root diseases, leaf spots and shoot/tip blight on a variety of horticultural crops, such as  D. corticola on oaks,  D. sapinea on pines and  D. mutila and  D. seriata on apples (Alves et al. 2004, Trapman et al. 2008, Stanosz et al. 2009, Phillips et al. 2012, Úrbez-Torres et al. 2016, Ferreira et al. 2021). Although more than 1000 species epithets are listed in MycoBank and similar databases (Crous et al. 2004), DNA sequence data are available for a limited number of species. Currently, 28 species are recognised based mainly on the basis of molecular data and minor differences in conidial morphology (Phillips et al. 2013, Boonmee et al. 2021, Lee et al. 2021, Tennakoon et al. 2021, Zhang et al. 2021a).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0397879FFC022934FF649FF5FA8DFA27	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Pereira, Diana S.;Phillips, Alan J. L.	Pereira, Diana S., Phillips, Alan J. L. (2023): Botryosphaeriaceae on palms-a new species of Neodeightonia, N. chamaeropicola, and new records from diseased foliage of ornamental palms in Portugal. Phytotaxa 627 (1): 1921-1935, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.627.1.1, URL: https://phytotaxa.mapress.com/pt/article/download/phytotaxa.627.1.1/51323
0397879FFC022935FF649885FD84F94F.text	0397879FFC022935FF649885FD84F94F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Diplodia mutila Fr.	<div><p>Diplodia mutila (Fr.: Fr.) Fr., Summa Vegetabilium Scandinaviae 2: 417 (1849), MycoBank MB201741</p><p>(Figure 8)</p><p>Type: FRANCE, Ardenne, Sedan, on bark of  Populus nigra ( Salicaceae), date unknown, Montagne (isotype K 99664). PORTUGAL, Beira Litoral, Aveiro,  Populus alba ( Salicaceae), 2012, A. Alves (epitype designated by Alves et al. (2014), LISE 96136, culture ex-epitype CBS 136014). ENGLAND, Saltash, on bark of  Malus sp., 22 Aug 1935, N.E. Stevens (lectotype designated by Alves et al. (2014), BPI 599153).</p><p>Sexual morph and asexual morph reported. See Phillips et al. (2013) and Alves et al. (2014) for illustrations and descriptions.</p><p>Isolate CDP 0088. Sexual morph: Undetermined. Asexual morph: Conidiomata on palm leaf pieces in culture pycnidial, globose, non-stromatic, uniloculate, dark brown to black, solitary or aggregated, immersed in the host becoming partially erumpent when mature, occasionally semi-immersed or superficial, densely covered by greyish mycelial hairs, exuding a creamy, whitish mucoid mass or cirrus of conidia. Conidiogenous cells lining the pycnidial cavity, hyaline, smooth- and thin-walled, simple, indeterminate, cylindrical, occasionally swollen at the base, rarely ampulliform, straight or flexuous, aseptate, occasionally 1-septate, enteroblastic, proliferating at the same level giving rise to periclinal thickenings, occasionally proliferating percurrently giving rise to 1–2 annelations, rarely more, 8.9– 16.55 × 2.67–5.79 μm, 95 % confidence limits = 11.02–12.27 × 3.64–4.18 μm (mean ± SD = 11.65 ± 1.75 × 3.91 ± 0.76 μm, n = 30). Conidia oblong to obovoid, broadly rounded ends, smooth- and thick-walled, hyaline and aseptate, with granular contents, eguttulate, few becoming pale brown to brown and 1–2-septate with age, 21.21–26.85(–32.79) × 9.85–13.96(–16.17) μm, 95 % confidence limits = 23.44–24.98 × 11.92–12.78 μm (mean ± SD = 24.21 ± 2.15 × 12.35 ± 1.20 μm), mean ± SD conidium length/width ratio = 1.97 ± 0.18 (n = 30).</p><p>Culture characteristics: Colonies on 1/2 PDA, reaching 85 mm diam. after 7 d at 20 ℃ in darkness. Surface flat, raised towards the centre, with dense effuse aerial mycelium, with filamentous, entire margin, circular shape, olivaceous, becoming greyish to brownish towards the centre, opaque. Reverse greyish, becoming dark-brown to blackish towards the centre. Turning entirely black (surface) and dark bluish to black (reverse) after about 2 w. No diffusible pigment.</p><p>Material examined: PORTUGAL, Lisbon, Alvalade, Campo Grande, on foliar lesions of leaflets of  Phoenix dactylifera ( Arecaceae), 17 October 2018, Telma P.N.G. da Costa (specimen HDP 048), living culture CDP 0088 (ITS sequence OQ996219, tef1 sequence OR233679).</p><p>Hosts: Although up to 60 hosts are listed for  Diplodia mutila by Farr &amp; Rossman (2023), since the clarification of the genus concept it became clear that many of the earlier reports of this fungus could be misidentifications (Alves et al. 2004, Phillips et al. 2013). Most recent reports confirm at least 29 genera in 20 families, including  Anacardiaceae ( Pistacia vera),  Aquifoliaceae ( Ilex sp.),  Araucariaceae ( Araucaria araucana),  Arecaceae ( Phoenix dactylifera),  Cupressaceae ( Chamaecyparis lawsoniana, Cha. obtuse,  Cupressus arizonica,  Cu. sempervirens,  Sequoia sempervirens,  Thuja plicata),  Ebenaceae ( Diospyros kaki),  Fagaceae ( Quercus rubra,  Q. suber),  Hippocastanaceae ( Aesculus hippocastanum),  Juglandaceae ( Juglans regia),  Lauraceae ( Persea americana),  Lythraceae ( Punica granatum),  Oleaceae ( Fraxinus excelsior,  F. ornus,  Olea europaea),  Pinaceae ( Abies bracteate,  Cedrus atlantica,  Pinus halepensis),  Pittosporaceae ( Pittosporum tobira),  Rhamnaceae ( Ziziphus jujuba),  Rosaceae ( Amelanchier alnifolia,  Malus domestica,  M. pumila,  Prunus armeniaca,  Pru. cerasus,  Pru. dulcis,  Pru. laurocerasus,  Pru. persica,  Pru. salicina,  Pyrus communis),  Rutaceae ( Citrus limon,  Ci. sinensis),  Salicaceae ( Populus alba,  Po. nigra,  Po. tremula),  Taxaceae ( Taxus baccata) and  Vitaceae ( Vitis vinifera) (Farr &amp; Rossman 2023).</p><p>Distribution: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Canada (British Columbia), Chile, France, Germany, Hungary, Iran, Italy, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, South Africa, Spain, United Kingdom (England), Uruguay and USA (California, Wisconsin) (Farr &amp; Rossman 2023).</p><p>Notes: Based on phylogenetic analyses of the combined ITS- tef1 dataset, strain CDP 0088 clustered with the ex-epitype strain and other strains of  Diplodia mutila with high PP value (Figure 2). Sequence comparisons with the ex-epitype of  D. mutila (CBS 136014) for ITS and tef1 showed 100 % sequence similarity for both loci. Morphologically, CDP 0088 isolated in this study is similar to the epitype of  D. mutila from  Populus alba in Portugal (Alves et al. 2014). Both produce pycnidial conidiomata with oblong, thick-walled, hyaline, aseptate conidia, that may become brown and 1-septate with age. Conidial dimensions of CDP 0088 are very similar to those of the ex-epitype of  D. mutila (CBS 136014) (mean = 24.21 × 12.35 μm versus 25.4 × 13.4 μm, respectively) (Alves et al. 2014) (Figure 8). Thus, based on these morpho-molecular analyses, strain CDP 0088 is here reported as  D. mutila .  Diplodia mutila have been previously reported on  Arecaceae, namely on  Phoenix dactylifera in Iran (Mohammadi 2014) and USA (California) (Alves et al. 2006, as  Botryosphaeria stevensii). In the present study,  D. mutila is reported on  P. dactylifera in Portugal (Table 5). Alvarez-Loayza et al. (2008) reported this species on Iriatea deltoidei in Peru, but no molecular data was associated with the report, which was identified as  D. mutila based on “growth characteristics and morphology of pycnidia and conidia”. Since morphology is inadequate to define genera or identify species in  Botryosphaeriaceae (Phillips et al. 2013, Slippers et al. 2013, 2014, 2017), the validity of this report is yet to be determined. Taylor &amp; Hyde (2003) also recorded  D. mutila on  Arecaceae hosts, including  Archontophoenix alexandrae in Malaysia and  Trachycarpus fortunei in China and Switzerland, but again, identifications were based solely on morphology and thus the validity of these reports is yet to be determined. The isolate of  D. mutila studied was recorded from foliar lesions of  P. dactylifera, but pathogenicity has not been tested.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0397879FFC022935FF649885FD84F94F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Pereira, Diana S.;Phillips, Alan J. L.	Pereira, Diana S., Phillips, Alan J. L. (2023): Botryosphaeriaceae on palms-a new species of Neodeightonia, N. chamaeropicola, and new records from diseased foliage of ornamental palms in Portugal. Phytotaxa 627 (1): 1921-1935, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.627.1.1, URL: https://phytotaxa.mapress.com/pt/article/download/phytotaxa.627.1.1/51323
0397879FFC002937FF649BB5FDF8FD17.text	0397879FFC002937FF649BB5FDF8FD17.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dothiorella Sacc.	<div><p>Dothiorella Sacc.,  Michelia 2: 5 (1880), MycoBank MB8098</p><p>Dothiorella was introduced by Saccardo (1880) with  D. pyrenophora as the type species. The genus has been subjected to many taxonomic changes in the past, since the name has been used for both  Fusicoccum and  Neofusicoccum asexual morphs. Crous &amp; Palm (1999) reduced  Dothiorella to synonymy under  Diplodia based on a broad morphological concept. However, Phillips et al. (2005) re-examined the holotype of  D. pyrenophora and found that it differed from  Diplodia and based on morphology and molecular data of ITS and tef1 resurrected  Dothiorella and emended the genus description. Types of both genera were re-examined by Crous et al. (2006) who confirmed these morphological differences and, based on partial sequences of the LSU gene, also showed that  Dothiorella and  Diplodia strains were phylogenetically different lineages.  Dothiorella and  Spencermartinsia were earlier considered to be two separate genera in  Botryosphaeriaceae based on morphological characters of the sexual morphs (Phillips et al. 2008, 2013, Dissanayake et al. 2016a). Nevertheless, with the increase in the number of species over the years, the phylogenetic separation between  Dothiorella and  Spencermartinsia has become less distinct and could not be resolved by Slippers et al. 2013 based on the phylogenetic analysis of six gene regions. Likewise, Yang et al. (2017) showed that species of  Spencermartinsia clustered within  Dothiorella, and the two genera were considered to be synonymous. Species in  Dothiorella are characterized by 1-septate conidia that become brown at an early stage of their development and while still attached to the conidiogenous cells, and teleomorphs with brown, 1-septate ascospores (Phillips et al. 2005, 2008, 2013, Crous et al. 2006). They are found as pathogens, endophytes and saprobes in a wide range of hosts, though it is not clear whether species have narrow or wide host distributions (Abdollahzadeh et al. 2014, Pitt et al. 2015, Dissanayake et al. 2016b, You et al. 2017, Berraf-Tebbal et al. 2020). Although more than 400 species epithets are listed in MycoBank and similar databases (Crous et al. 2004), only a limited number of them are known from culture. Besides, while 36 species have been accepted based on morpho-molecular analyses by Dissanayake et al. 2016a, many species have been introduced since and 15 of those have been recently synonymized (Zhang et al. 2021a). Presently, 33 species of  Dothiorella known from culture have been accepted based on both morphology and DNA sequence data, and, except for  D. sarmentorum, all species have been introduced since 2005 (Phillips et al. 2013, Slippers et al. 2017, Xiao et al. 2021, Rathnayaka et al. 2022a,b).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0397879FFC002937FF649BB5FDF8FD17	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Pereira, Diana S.;Phillips, Alan J. L.	Pereira, Diana S., Phillips, Alan J. L. (2023): Botryosphaeriaceae on palms-a new species of Neodeightonia, N. chamaeropicola, and new records from diseased foliage of ornamental palms in Portugal. Phytotaxa 627 (1): 1921-1935, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.627.1.1, URL: https://phytotaxa.mapress.com/pt/article/download/phytotaxa.627.1.1/51323
0397879FFC012930FF649FF5FD84FD73.text	0397879FFC012930FF649FF5FD84FD73.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dothiorella viticola A. J. L. Phillips & J. Luque, Mycologia	<div><p>Dothiorella viticola A.J.L. Phillips &amp; J. Luque, Mycologia 97: 1118 (2005), MycoBank MB357425</p><p>(Figure 9)</p><p>Type: SPAIN, Catalonia, Vim-bodí, near the Monastery of Poblet, on pruned canes of  Vitis vinifera cv. Garnatxa Negra ( Vitaceae), Aug 2004, J. Luque &amp; S. Martos, (holotype LISE 95177, culture ex-type CBS 117009).</p><p>Sexual morph and asexual morph reported. See Phillips et al. (2013) for illustrations and descriptions.</p><p>Isolate CDP 1010. Sexual morph: Undetermined. Asexual morph: Conidiomata on palm leaf pieces in culture pycnidial, spherical, globose to subglobose, few slightly papillate, non-stromatic to stromatic, uniloculate, rarely multiloculate, black, solitary, occasionally aggregated, semi-immersed to superficial, immersed when produced on culture medium, glabrous, covered with few mycelial hairs towards the ostiolar region, thick-walled. Conidiophores reduced to conidiogenous cells. Conidiogenous cells lining the pycnidial cavity, hyaline, smooth- and thin-walled, simple, discrete, determinate, cylindrical to broadly lageniform, straight, aseptate, enteroblastic, proliferating at the same level giving rise to periclinal thickenings, occasionally proliferating percurrently giving rise to 1–2 annelations, 6.65–13.68 × 2.97–7.75 μm, 95 % confidence limits = 8.24–9.37 × 3.90–4.72 μm (mean ± SD = 8.80 ± 1.60 × 4.31 ± 1.17 μm, n = 30). Conidia broadly ellipsoid or oblong, often broadly obovoid, rounded ends, often with truncated base, dark brown and 1-septate, finely rough- and moderately thick-walled, eguttulate, 17.85–21.86 × 8.12–10.79 μm, 95 % confidence limits = 19.70–20.43 × 9.20–9.72 μm (mean ± SD = 20.06 ± 1.02 × 9.46 ± 0.74 μm), mean ± SD conidium length/width ratio = 2.13 ± 0.20 (n = 30).</p><p>Culture characteristics: Colonies on 1/2 PDA, reaching 85 mm diam. after 7 d at 20 ℃ in darkness. Surface slightly raised, with fluffy, cottony aerial mycelium, with entire margin, circular shape, whitish to olivaceous towards the centre, opaque. Reverse pale to dark brown to blackish towards the centre. Turning entirely smokey grey (surface) and dark brown to blackish (reverse) after about 2 w. No diffusible pigment.</p><p>Material examined: PORTUGAL, Lisbon, Areeiro, Robalo Gouveia Street, on foliar lesions of segments of  Trachycarpus fortunei ( Arecaceae), 26 October 2018, Diana S. Pereira (specimen HDP 069, new host and geographical record), living culture CDP 1010 (ITS sequence OQ996228, tef1 sequence OR233683); Parque das Nações, on foliar lesions of leaflets of  Phoenix roebelenii ( Arecaceae), 8 May 2021, Diana S. Pereira (specimen HDP 088, new host record), living culture CDP 1381 (ITS sequence OQ996230, tef1 sequence OR233684); Parque das Nações, on foliar lesions of segments of  Chamaerops humilis ( Arecaceae), 8 May 2021, Diana S. Pereira (specimen HDP 090, new host record), living culture CDP 1513 (ITS sequence OQ996234, tef1 sequence OR233685); Parque das Nações, on foliar lesions of segments of  Washingtonia filifera ( Arecaceae), 8 May 2021, Diana S. Pereira (specimen HDP 095, new host record), living cultures CDP 1813 (ITS sequence OQ996240, tef1 sequence OR233686), CDP 1815 (ITS sequence OQ996241, tef1 sequence OR233687).</p><p>Hosts:  Chamaerops humilis ( Arecaceae),  Citrus sinensis,  Citrus sp. ( Rutaceae),  Juglans regia ( Juglandaceae),  Phoenix roebelenii ( Arecaceae),  Podocarpus henkelii ( Podocarpaceae),  Populus cathayana ( Salicaceae),  Prunus domestica,  P. dulcis,  P. pérsica,  P. salicina ( Rosaceae),  Trachycarpus fortunei ( Arecaceae),  Vachellia karroo ( Fabaceae),  Vitis vinifera ( Vitaceae) and  Washingtonia filifera ( Arecaceae) (Farr &amp; Rossman 2023, present study).</p><p>Distribution: Australia, China, Iran, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Tunisia and USA (California) (Farr &amp; Rossman 2023, present study).</p><p>Notes: Based on the phylogenetic analyses of the combined ITS- tef1 dataset, strains CDP 1010, CDP 1381, CDP 1513, CDP 1813 and CDP 1815 clustered with the ex-type strain and other strains of  Dothiorella viticola with high ML-BS/PP values (Figure 3). Sequence comparisons with the ex-type of  D. viticola (CBS 117009) for ITS and tef1 showed 99.78–100 % and 99.15–99.78 %, respectively, sequence similarity and differences are represented by gaps or single nucleotide changes in ITS2, and single nucleotide changes in tef1 partial sequences. Morphologically, the strains isolated in this study are similar to the holotype of  D. viticola from  Vitis vinifera in Spain (Luque et al. 2005) (Figure 9). Considering the strain characterized here (CDP 1010) and the ex-type strain of  D. viticola (CBS 117009), both produce spherical, globose, black pycnidial conidiomata with oblong, dark-brown, moderately thick-walled and 1-septate conidia, which display very similar dimensions (mean = 20.06 × 9.46 μm for CDP 1010 versus 20.4 × 9.3 μm for CBS 117009) (Luque et al. 2005) (Figure 9).  Dothiorella viticola has not previously been reported from Portugal, representing a new geographical record. Moreover, this is the first time this species is recorded on palms and thus four new host records are reported, namely  Trachycarpus fortunei,  Phoenix roebelenii,  Chamaerops humilis and  Washingtonia filifera (Table 5). The isolates of  D. viticola studied here were recorded from foliar lesions of palms but pathogenicity has not been tested.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0397879FFC012930FF649FF5FD84FD73	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Pereira, Diana S.;Phillips, Alan J. L.	Pereira, Diana S., Phillips, Alan J. L. (2023): Botryosphaeriaceae on palms-a new species of Neodeightonia, N. chamaeropicola, and new records from diseased foliage of ornamental palms in Portugal. Phytotaxa 627 (1): 1921-1935, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.627.1.1, URL: https://phytotaxa.mapress.com/pt/article/download/phytotaxa.627.1.1/51323
0397879FFC062931FF649AA9FE3AFCBB.text	0397879FFC062931FF649AA9FE3AFCBB.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neodeightonia C. Booth 1970	<div><p>Neodeightonia C. Booth, in Punithalingam, Mycological Papers 119: 17 (1970), MycoBank MB3450</p><p>Neodeightonia was introduced by Booth based on  N. subglobosa on dead culms of  Bambusa arundinacea from Sierra Leone (Punithalingam 1969). von Arx &amp; Müller (1975) transferred  N. subglobosa to  Botryosphaeria and consequently reduced  Neodeightonia to synonymy under  Botryosphaeria . However, based on morpho-molecular data, Phillips et al. (2008) reinstated  Neodeightonia as a separate lineage in  Botryosphaeriaceae distinct from  Botryosphaeria .  Neodeightonia species are characterized by hyaline, aseptate ascospores with bipolar germ pores, surrounded by a membrane that swells in water acquiring a wing-like appearance, and hyaline, aseptate conidia that may become pigmented, 1-septate and smooth to finely roughened or striate (Liu et al. 2012, Phillips et al. 2013, 2019) (Table 4). They are typically associated with monocotyledonous plants and are mostly restricted to palms ( Arecaceae) and bamboos ( Poaceae) (Punithalingam 1969, Phillips et al. 2008, Liu et al. 2012, Adamčík et al. 2015, Dai et al. 2017), being primarily reported as saprobes, although a few have been reported as pathogens causing leaf spots and leaf, rachis and root rot (Ligoxigakis et al. 2013, Bengyella et al. 2015, Nishad &amp; Ahmed 2020, Shabong &amp; Kayang 2022, Zhang &amp; Song 2022). Given the synonymies proposed and the species introduced herein, nine species known from culture are included in  Neodeightonia based on morphological and phylogenetic analyses, namely  N. chamaeropicola sp. nov.,  N. licuriensis (Adamčík et al. 2015),  N. microspora (Dai et al. 2017),  N. palmicola (Liu et al. 2010),  N. phoenicum (Phillips et al. 2008),  N. rattanica,  N. rattanicola (Konta et al. 2016a),  N. septata (Wu et al. 2022) and  N. subglobosa (Phillips et al. 2008) . Of these, seven have been reported from palms ( N. chamaeropicola,  N. licuriensis,  N. palmicola,  N. phoenicum,  N. rattanica,  N. rattanicola and  N. septata), while the remaining two have been reported from bamboos ( N. microspora and  N. subglobosa). Recently  Botryosphaeria mucosa was transferred to  Neodeightonia by Zhang et al. (2021b) based on morphological analysis, but since no molecular data are available for this species its status cannot be confirmed.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0397879FFC062931FF649AA9FE3AFCBB	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Pereira, Diana S.;Phillips, Alan J. L.	Pereira, Diana S., Phillips, Alan J. L. (2023): Botryosphaeriaceae on palms-a new species of Neodeightonia, N. chamaeropicola, and new records from diseased foliage of ornamental palms in Portugal. Phytotaxa 627 (1): 1921-1935, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.627.1.1, URL: https://phytotaxa.mapress.com/pt/article/download/phytotaxa.627.1.1/51323
0397879FFC38290EFF649B78FA2CF7BF.text	0397879FFC38290EFF649B78FA2CF7BF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neodeightonia C. Booth 1970	<div><p>Key to species in  Neodeightonia</p><p>Neodeightonia species known from culture can be separated on conidial morphology.</p><p>1. Conidia hyaline, aseptate, becoming pigmented ................................................................................................................................2</p><p>1. Conidia hyaline, aseptate, becoming pigmented and septate .............................................................................................................4</p><p>2. Conidia never longer than 13.5 μm, 9–13.5 μm long....................................................................................................  N. subglobosa</p><p>2. Conia longer than 13 μm ....................................................................................................................................................................3</p><p>3. Conidia never shorter than 13 μm, 13–20 μm long.......................................................................................................  N. rattanicola</p><p>3. Conidia never shorter than 19 μm, 19–22 μm long..........................................................................................................  N. rattanica</p><p>4. Pigmented conidia without longitudinal striations ..............................................................................................................  N. septata</p><p>4. Pigmented conidia with longitudinal striations ..................................................................................................................................5</p><p>5. Conidia less than 13 μm long, 6.8–12.4 μm long..................................................................................................  N. chamaeropicola</p><p>5. Conidia longer than 14 μm .................................................................................................................................................................6</p><p>6. Pigmented conidia up to 3-septate..................................................................................................................................  N. licuriensis</p><p>6. Pigmented conidia 1-septate...............................................................................................................................................................7</p><p>7. Conidia never longer than 21.5 μm, 15.5–21.5 μm long..............................................................................................  N. phoenicum 1</p><p>7. Conidia up to 24.5 μm long, 17.5−24.5 μm long ...........................................................................................................  N. palmicola 1</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0397879FFC38290EFF649B78FA2CF7BF	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Pereira, Diana S.;Phillips, Alan J. L.	Pereira, Diana S., Phillips, Alan J. L. (2023): Botryosphaeriaceae on palms-a new species of Neodeightonia, N. chamaeropicola, and new records from diseased foliage of ornamental palms in Portugal. Phytotaxa 627 (1): 1921-1935, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.627.1.1, URL: https://phytotaxa.mapress.com/pt/article/download/phytotaxa.627.1.1/51323
0397879FFC072933FF649E61FE7FFD17.text	0397879FFC072933FF649E61FE7FFD17.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neodeightonia chamaeropicola D. S. Pereira & A. J. L. Phillips 2023	<div><p>Neodeightonia chamaeropicola D.S. Pereira &amp; A.J.L. Phillips sp. nov., MycoBank MB847703</p><p>(Figure 10)</p><p>Etymology: Named after the host genus from which it was isolated,  Chamaerops humilis .</p><p>Type:   PORTUGAL, Lisbon, Parque das Nações, on foliar lesions of  Chamaerops
humilis
 ( Arecaceae), 8 May 2021,  Diana S. Pereira (specimen HDP 089, holotype AVE-F-16, culture ex-type CDP 1446 = CBS KNAW culture collection, ITS sequence OQ 996231, tef1 sequence OR 233669).</p><p>Associated with foliar lesions. Sexual morph: Undetermined. Asexual morph: Conidiomata on palm leaf pieces in culture pycnidial, globose to subglobose, slightly papillate, non-stromatic, uniloculate, dark brown to black, solitary, occasionally aggregated, scattered, semi-immersed to superficial or immersed in the host becoming erumpent when mature, glabrous, exuding a creamy, whitish mucoid mass or cirrus of conidia. Conidiophores reduced to conidiogenous cells. Conidiogenous cells lining the pycnidial cavity, hyaline, smooth- and thin-walled, simple, indeterminate, cylindrical, often swollen at the base, ampulliform, straight or curved, aseptate, occasionally 1-septate, enteroblastic, proliferating at the same level giving rise to periclinal thickenings, or proliferating percurrently to form 1–3 annellations, occasionally enteroblastic proliferating percurrently after the formation of a new conidiogenous cell by apical wallbuilding, variable in size, 8.28–24.23 × 3.38–8.55 μm, 95 % confidence limits = 13.80–15.81 × 4.65–5.19 μm (mean ± SD = 14.80 ± 3.63 × 4.92 ± 0.98 μm, n = 50). Conidia broadly ellipsoid to obovoid, apex and base broadly rounded, widest in the middle, thick-walled, initially hyaline and aseptate, becoming pale to dark brown and 1-septate, with melanin deposits on the inner surface of the wall arranged longitudinally giving a striate appearance to the conidia, mostly eguttulate, 6.80–12.42 × 2.71–4.60 μm, 95 % confidence limits = 7.82–8.32 × 3.60–3.81 μm (mean ± SD = 8.07 ± 0.91 × 3.70 ± 0.38 μm), mean ± SD conidium length/width ratio = 2.20 ± 0.29 (n = 50).</p><p>Culture characteristics: Colonies on 1/2 PDA, reaching 80 mm diam. after 7 at 20 ℃ in darkness. Surface raised, cottony, with abundant aerial mycelium, with entire, filamentous margin, circular shape, whitish, becoming pale to light brown towards the centre, opaque. Reverse pale, becoming brownish towards the centre. No diffusible pigment.</p><p>Additional material examined: PORTUGAL, Lisbon, Parque das Nações, on foliar lesions of  Chamaerops humilis ( Arecaceae), 8 May 2021, Diana S. Pereira (specimen HDP 089), living culture CDP 1447 (ITS sequence OQ996232, tef1 sequence OR233670); Parque das Nações, on foliar lesions of  C. humilis ( Arecaceae), 8 May 2021, Diana S. Pereira (specimen HDP 090), living culture CDP 1512 (ITS sequence OQ996233, tef1 sequence OR233671); Parque das Nações, on foliar lesions of  C. humilis ( Arecaceae), 8 May 2021, Diana S. Pereira (specimen HDP 091), living culture CDP 1566 (ITS sequence OQ996236, tef1 sequence OR233673).</p><p>Hosts:  Chamaerops humilis (present study),  Phoenix dactylifera (Al-Sadi et al. 2012),  Syagrus romanzoffiana (da Silva Fonseca et al. 2020) ( Arecaceae).</p><p>Distribution: Brazil (Pato Branco, Paraná) (da Silva Fonseca et al. 2020), Oman (Al-Sadi et al. 2012), Portugal (Lisbon) (present study).</p><p>Notes: Based on ITS and tef1 sequence data,  Neodeightonia chamaeropicola (CDP 1446) is most closely related to  N. phoenicum (CBS 122528) (Figure 4) and can be distinguished from it based on 10 fixed unique single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) and seven fixed deletion/insertion polymorphisms (DIP) in the partial sequences of those two gene regions (three in ITS and seven in tef1). Thus,  N. chamaeropicola and  N. phoenicum differ in seven and 10 nucleotide positions in ITS and tef1 partial loci, respectively. Moreover, two additional SNP are observed in the tef1 sequence data between the ex-type strain of  N. chamaeropicola and  N. phoenicum, although they were not considered fixed, since they are not observed in the remaining  N. chamaeropicola strains studied. In short, the ex-type strains of  N. chamaeropicola (CDP 1446) and  N. phoenicum (CBS 122528) display 98.62 % (501/508, including 4 gaps) and 95.77 % (272/284, including 3 gaps) sequence similarity in ITS and tef1, respectively. Morphologically,  N. chamaeropicola (CDP 1446) and  N. phoenicum (CBS 122528) are similar, both producing dark brown to black pycnidial conidiomata and ellipsoid, hyaline and aseptate conidia that become pigmented, 1-septate and striate after discharge from the conidiomata (Phillips et al. 2008) (Figure 10, Table 4). Nonetheless, they can be distinguished from one another based on conidial morphology (Phillips et al. 2008) (Figure 10, Table 4). Conidia of  N. chamaeropicola (CDP 1446) (mean = 8.07 × 3.70 μm; L/W = 2.20) are substantially smaller, with a higher L/W ratio than those of  N. phoenicum (CBS 122528) (mean = 19.1 × 11.5 μm; L/W = 1.7) (Phillips et al. 2008). Four strains of  N. chamaeropicola were isolated, namely CDP 1446 (ex-type), CDP 1447, CDP 1512 and CDP 1566. They exhibited a minute degree of variation in colony morphology when cultured on 1/2 PDA, which is expressed by the amount of aerial mycelium produced. No relevant variation in micromorphology was observed between these strains. The nucleotide sequence similarity between them was 99.41–100 % for ITS, which result from a single nucleotide position difference in CDP 1566 (i.e. an additional G in ITS1) and three nucleotide positions differences in CDP 1512 (i.e. the insertions of an A and G and a deletion of a G in ITS1), and 99.29 % for tef1, resulting from two nucleotide position differences that were only present in the partial tef1 sequence of the ex-type strain CDP 1446. The isolates of  N. chamaeropicola studied were recorded from foliar lesions of  Chamaerops humilis, but pathogenicity has not been tested.  Neodeightonia chamaeropicola (as “  N. phoenicum ”) has been previously isolated and characterized as a weak pathogen causing root necrosis of  Phoenix dactylifera (Al-Sadi et al. 2012) .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0397879FFC072933FF649E61FE7FFD17	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Pereira, Diana S.;Phillips, Alan J. L.	Pereira, Diana S., Phillips, Alan J. L. (2023): Botryosphaeriaceae on palms-a new species of Neodeightonia, N. chamaeropicola, and new records from diseased foliage of ornamental palms in Portugal. Phytotaxa 627 (1): 1921-1935, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.627.1.1, URL: https://phytotaxa.mapress.com/pt/article/download/phytotaxa.627.1.1/51323
0397879FFC3B290DFF649E0DFBB5FA9F.text	0397879FFC3B290DFF649E0DFBB5FA9F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neodeightonia palmicola J. K. Liu, Phook. & K. D. Hyde	<div><p>Neodeightonia palmicola J.K. Liu, Phook. &amp; K.D. Hyde, Sydowia 62: 268 (2010), MycoBank MB518804</p><p>New synonyms:  Neodeightonia planchoniae Jayasiri &amp; K.D. Hyde, Mycosphere 10: 147 (2019), MycoBank MB555583;  Neodeightonia arengae Y.R. Xiong, Manawas., K.D. Hyde &amp; Z.Y. Dong, Phytotaxa 530: 136 (2022), MycoBank MB558659.</p><p>Notes:  Neodeightonia planchoniae and  N.arengae introduced by Jayasiri et al.(2019) and Xiong et al. 2022, respectively, are reduced to synonymy under  N. palmicola . According to the phylogenetic analyses in this study, isolates of  N. palmicola,  N. planchoniae and  N. arengae clustered together in a monophyletic clade supported with high ML-BS/PP values (Figure 4). The ex-type culture of  N. palmicola (MFLUCC 10-0822) has the following nucleotide similarities with the sequences of the ex-types of  N. planchoniae (MFLUCC 17-2427) and  N. arengae (ZHKUCC 21-0074). On ITS: 99.00 % (496/501, including 2 gaps) and 99.60 % (499/501, including 1 gap), respectively. On LSU: 99.16 % (473/477, all incompletely specified bases) and 100 % (477/477), respectively. On SSU: 96.93 % (774/806, including 2 gaps and 16 incompletely specified bases) and 99.75 % (802/804, all gaps), respectively. No tef1 sequence data is available for the ex-type strain of  N. palmicola (MFLUCC 10-0822), though ITS and tef1 are the most important loci to separate species within most genera of  Botryosphaeriaceae (Phillips et al. 2013) .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0397879FFC3B290DFF649E0DFBB5FA9F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Pereira, Diana S.;Phillips, Alan J. L.	Pereira, Diana S., Phillips, Alan J. L. (2023): Botryosphaeriaceae on palms-a new species of Neodeightonia, N. chamaeropicola, and new records from diseased foliage of ornamental palms in Portugal. Phytotaxa 627 (1): 1921-1935, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.627.1.1, URL: https://phytotaxa.mapress.com/pt/article/download/phytotaxa.627.1.1/51323
0397879FFC05290DFF649FF5FEFAFD5F.text	0397879FFC05290DFF649FF5FEFAFD5F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neodeightonia phoenicum A. J. L. Phillips & Crous	<div><p>Neodeightonia phoenicum A.J.L. Phillips &amp; Crous, Persoonia 21: 43 (2008), MycoBank MB511708</p><p>(Figure 11)</p><p>Type: SPAIN, Catalonia, Tarragona, Salou, on  Phoenix sp. ( Arecaceae), date unknown, F. Garcia (holotype CBS H-20108, culture ex-type CBS 122528).</p><p>Sexual morph not reported. See Phillips et al. (2013) for illustrations and descriptions of asexual morph.</p><p>Isolate CDP 0281. Sexual morph: Undetermined. Asexual morph: Conidiomata on palm leaf pieces in culture pycnidial, globose to subglobose, slightly papillate, non-stromatic, uniloculate, dark brown to black, solitary or aggregated, scattered, immersed to semi-immersed, covered with greyish to blackish mycelial hairs, exuding a creamy, whitish mucoid mass or cirrus of conidia, immersed in the host becoming erumpent when mature. Conidiophores reduced to conidiogenous cells. Conidiogenous cells lining the pycnidial cavity, hyaline, smooth- and thin-walled, simple, indeterminate, cylindrical, often swollen at the base, few lageniform to ampulliform, straight or curved, aseptate, enteroblastic, proliferating at the same level giving rise to inconspicuous periclinal thickenings, or proliferating percurrently to form 1–2 annellations, variable in size, 8.32–18.06 × 3.21–11.02 μm, 95 % confidence limits = 12.11– 14.23 × 4.65–5.95 μm (mean ± SD = 13.17 ± 2.96 × 5.30 ± 1.82 μm, n = 30). Conidia broadly ellipsoid to obovoid, apex and base broadly rounded, widest in the middle to upper third, thick-walled, initially hyaline and aseptate, becoming pale to dark brown and 1-septate, with melanin deposits on the inner surface of the wall arranged longitudinally giving a striate appearance to the conidia, mostly eguttulate, 13.37–19.49 × 7.75–10.33 μm, 95 % confidence limits = 16.35–17.45 × 8.80–9.28 μm (mean ± SD = 16.90 ± 1.54 × 9.04 ± 0.67 μm), mean ± SD conidium length/width ratio = 1.88 ± 0.23 (n = 30).</p><p>Culture characteristics: Colonies on 1/2 PDA, reaching 85 mm diam. after 7 d at 20 ℃ in darkness. Surface flat, with sparse aerial mycelium, with entire, filamentous margin, circular shape, whitish, becoming dark brown towards the centre, opaque. Reverse pale, becoming dark brown towards the centre. Turning entirely smokey grey to olivaceous-grey (surface) and dark brown to blackish (reverse) after about 2 w. No diffusible pigment.</p><p>Material examined: PORTUGAL, Lisbon, Parque das Nações, Jardim das Palmeiras, on foliar lesions of segments of  Phoenix dactylifera ( Arecaceae), 16 October 2018, Diana S. Pereira (specimen HDP 046, new geographical record), living cultures CDP 0281 (ITS sequence OQ996220), CDP 0284 (ITS sequence OQ996221), CDP 0290 (ITS sequence OQ996222); Parque das Nações, Cais dos Argonautas, on foliar lesions of segments of  Phoenix reclinata ( Arecaceae), 24 October 2018, Diana S. Pereira (specimen HDP 055), living culture CDP 0593 (ITS sequence OQ996224); Parque das Nações, Cais dos Argonautas, on foliar lesions of segments of  Phoenix reclinata ( Arecaceae), 24 October 2018, Diana S. Pereira (specimen HDP 060), living cultures CDP 0745 (ITS sequence OQ996225), CDP 0771 (ITS sequence OQ996226, tef1 sequence OR233667), CDP 0774 (ITS sequence OQ996227, tef1 sequence OR233668).</p><p>Hosts:  Phoenix spp., including  P. canariensis (Phillips et al. 2008),  P. dactylifera (Phillips et al. 2008, Elliot et al. 2018, Nishad &amp; Ahmed 2020, present study),  P. reclinata (Rathnayaka et al. 2022b, present study),  P. roebelenii (Zhang &amp; Song 2022) and unidentified  Phoenix species (Phillips et al. 2008, Ligoxigakis et al. 2013) ( Arecaceae).</p><p>Distribution: China (Zhang &amp; Song 2022), Greece (Ligoxigakis et al. 2013), Portugal (Lisbon) (present study), Quatar (Nishad &amp; Ahmed 2020), Spain (Phillips et al. 2008), Thailand (Rathnayaka et al. 2022b), USA (California) (Phillips et al. 2008, Elliot et al. 2018).</p><p>Notes: Based on the phylogenetic analysis of the combined ITS- tef1 dataset, strains CDP 0281, CDP 0284, CDP 0290, CDP 0593, CDP 0745, CDP 0771 and CDP 0774 clustered with the ex-type strain and other strains of  Neodeightonia phoenicum with high ML-BS/PP values (Figure 4). Sequence comparisons with the ex-type of  N. phoenicum (CBS 122528) for ITS and tef1 showed 99.61–100 % and 98.14 %, respectively, sequence similarity and differences are represented by gaps or single nucleotide changes in ITS1 and tef1 partial sequences. Morphologically, the strains isolated in this study are similar to the holotype of  N. phoenicum from  Phoenix sp. in Spain (Phillips et al. 2008) (Figure 11). Considering the strain characterized here (CDP 0281) and the ex-type strain of  N. phoenicum (CBS 122528), both produce dark brown to black pycnidial conidiomata with ellipsoid, hyaline and aseptate conidia that become pigmented, 1-septate and striate after discharge from the conidiomata (Phillips et al. 2008) (Figure 11). Nevertheless, the mean size of the conidia observed here (CDP 0281) is smaller than that reported for the ex-type strain (CBS 122528) (16.90 × 9.04 μm and 19.1 × 11.5 μm, respectively), though a similar mean conidium length/width ratio was observed (1.88 and 1.7, respectively) (Phillips et al. 2008). Thus, based on these morpho-molecular analyses, strains CDP 0281, CDP 0284, CDP 0290, CDP 0593, CDP 0745, CDP 0771 and CDP 0774 are here reported as representing intraspecific variation of  N. phoenicum . This intraspecific variation on the morphology of  N. phoenicum has also been reported from other collections (Rathnayaka et al. 2022b).  Neodeightonia phoenicum has only been reported from  Phoenix spp. ( Arecaceae), including  P. canariensis,  P. dactylifera,  P. reclinata and  P. roebelenii, and thus it is apparently restricted to palms. Nonetheless, it has not previously been reported from Portugal, representing a new geographical record (Table 5). The isolates of  N. phoenicum studied here were recorded from foliar lesions of  P. dactylifera and  P. reclinata, but pathogenicity has not been tested. Nonetheless,  N. phoenicum is an important pathogen of  Phoenix hosts worldwide and has already been reported has a palm rot disease pathogen of  Phoenix spp. in Greece and Quatar, as well as a leaf spotting agent of  P. roebelenii in China (Ligoxigakis et al. 2013, Nishad &amp; Ahmed 2020, Zhang &amp; Song 2022).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0397879FFC05290DFF649FF5FEFAFD5F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Pereira, Diana S.;Phillips, Alan J. L.	Pereira, Diana S., Phillips, Alan J. L. (2023): Botryosphaeriaceae on palms-a new species of Neodeightonia, N. chamaeropicola, and new records from diseased foliage of ornamental palms in Portugal. Phytotaxa 627 (1): 1921-1935, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.627.1.1, URL: https://phytotaxa.mapress.com/pt/article/download/phytotaxa.627.1.1/51323
0397879FFC392908FF649CB1FD5EFC77.text	0397879FFC392908FF649CB1FD5EFC77.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neofusicoccum Crous, Slippers & A. J. L. Phillips, Studies	<div><p>Neofusicoccum Crous, Slippers &amp; A.J.L. Phillips, Studies in Mycology 55: 247 (2006), MycoBank MB500870</p><p>Neofusicoccum, based on  N. parvum isolated from a dead branch of  Populus nigra in New Zealand, was introduced by Crous et al. (2006) to accommodate species morphologically similar to, but phylogenetically distinct from  Botryosphaeria . Some morphological characters have been used to differentiate these two genera, such as the presence of a  Dichomera synasexual morph in  Neofusicoccum species. However, this may not be a reliable character since not all  Neofusicoccum species form a  Dichomera synasexual morph, and some isolates of  B. dothidea have been reported to  form such a synasexual morph. A more reliable morphological difference is the absence of paraphyses in the conidiomata of  Neofusicoccum species, which have been seen in most  Botryosphaeria species (Barber et al. 2005, Phillips et al. 2005, 2013). Species in  Neofusicoccum are thus characterized by  Botryosphaeria -like sexual morphs,  Dichomera -like synasexual morphs and  Fusicoccum -like asexual morphs, with conidia that are more ellipsoidal than the fusiform ones found in  Fusicoccum s. str., with conidial L/W ratios less than 4 (Phillips et al. 2013). Species in  Neofusicoccum are difficult to differentiate from one other since many morphological characters overlap between species or are not stable between isolates of a given species. Thus molecular data are required to distinguish species (Crous et al. 2006, Phillips et al. 2008, Sakalidis et al. 2011, Abdollahzadeh et al. 2013, Phillips et al. 2013, Marin-Felix et al. 2017, Zhang et al. 2021a).  Neofusicoccum species have a worldwide and cosmopolitan distribution and are known as endophytes and pathogens causing shoot blight, cankers and dieback on a wide range of woody hosts, including wild, ornamental and economically important species (Slippers &amp; Wingfield 2007, Sakalidis et al. 2013, Pavlic-Zupanc et al. 2015, Brewer et al. 2021, Hattori et al. 2021). Given the last synonymies proposed and taxa introduced,  Neofusicoccum presently includes 47 species based on both morphology and phylogenetic analyses (Brewer et al. 2021, Crous et al. 2021, Hattori et al. 2021, Tennakoon et al. 2021, Zhang et al. 2021 a,b, Xu et al. 2022, Si et al. 2023, present study). Nonetheless, many lineages in the genus continue to be confused, especially in the  N. parvum /  N. ribis species complex where 10 cryptic species have been identified and many others have been recently synonymised (Pavlic et al. 2009, Begoude et al. 2010, Sakalidis et al. 2011, 2013, Slippers et al. 2017, Zhang et al. 2021a).</p><p>Neofusicoccum australe (Slippers, Crous &amp; M.J. Wingf.) Crous, Slippers &amp; A.J.L. Phillips, Studies in Mycology 55: 248 (2006), MycoBank MB500873</p><p>Type: AUSTRALIA, Victoria, Batemans Bay, on  Acacia sp. ( Fabaceae), date unknown, M. J. Wingfield (holotype PREM 57589, culture ex-type CMW 6837).</p><p>Sexual morph and asexual morph reported. See Phillips et al. (2013) for illustrations and descriptions.</p><p>Isolate CDP 0075. Sexual morph: Undetermined. Asexual morph: Undetermined.</p><p>Culture characteristics: Colonies on 1/2 PDA, reaching 80 mm diam. after 7 d at 20 ℃ in darkness. Surface flat, with sparse aerial mycelium, with filamentous margin, irregular to circular shape, whitish to pale, becoming brownish towards the centre, opaque. Reverse pale, becoming brownish towards the centre. Turning entirely orangish to dark brown (reverse) after about 2 w. No diffusible pigment.</p><p>Material examined: PORTUGAL, Lisbon, Marvila, Rua Jorge Amado, on foliar lesions of leaflets of  Phoenix canariensis ( Arecaceae), 6 October 2018, Diana S. Pereira (specimen HDP 019), living culture CDP 0075 (ITS sequence OQ996218, tef1 sequence OR 233666).</p><p>Hosts: Reported from more than 50 genera in 28 families, including  Anacardiaceae ( Mangifera indica,  Pistacia vera),  Apiaceae ( Ferula communis),  Araucariaceae ( Wollemia nobilis),  Arecaceae ( Phoenix canariensis),  Casuarinaceae ( Allocasuarina fraseriana),  Cupressaceae ( Callitris preissii,  Chamaecyparis lawsoniana,  Cupressus lusitânica,  Sequoia sempervirens,  Sequoiadendron sp.,  S. giganteum,  Thuja plicata,  Thujopsis dolabrata,  Widdringtonia nodiflora),  Ebenaceae ( Diospyros kaki),  Elaeocarpaceae ( Elaeocarpus holopetalus),  Ericaceae ( Arctostaphylos glauca,  Vaccinium sp.,  V. corymbosum),  Fabaceae ( Acacia sp.,  A. cochlearis,  A. karroo,  A. longifolia,  A. mearnsii,  A. rostellifera,  Cytisus scoparius,  Robinia pseudoacacia,  Vachellia karroo),  Fagaceae ( Castanea sativa,  Quercus agrifolia,  Q. robur),  Hydrangeaceae ( Hydrangea macrophylla),  Juglandaceae ( Juglans sp.),  Lauraceae ( Persea americana),  Malvaceae ( Tilia platyphyllos),  Meliaceae ( Melia azedarach),  Myrtaceae ( Agonis flexuosa,  Callistemon viminalis,  Corymbia maculate,  Eucalyptus diversicolor,  E. globulus,  E. gomphocephala,  E. grandis,  E. marginata,  Syzygium cordatum),  Oleaceae ( Fraxinus excelsior,  Olea europaea),  Pinaceae ( Picea abies,  Pinus halepensis,  P. pinaster,  P. pinea),  Proteaceae ( Banksia sp.,  B. caleyi,  B. grandis,  Macadamia integrifolia,  Protea sp.,  P. cynaroides),  Rosaceae ( Malus domestica,  Prunus armeniaca,  P. domestica,  P. dulcis,  P. persica,  P. salicina,  Pyracantha coccinea,  Pyrus communis),  Rutaceae ( Citrus sp.,  C. sinensis,  C. unshiu),  Salicaceae ( Populus alba,  Salix sp.),  Santalaceae ( Santalum acuminatum),  Taxaceae ( Taxus baccata),  Ulmaceae ( Ulmus minor),  Vitaceae ( Vitis sp.,  V. vinifera) and  Zamiaceae ( Dioon spinulosum) (Farr &amp; Rossman 2023).</p><p>Distribution: Algeria, Australia, Chile, Italy (including Sicily), Mexico, New Zealand, Portugal, South Africa (including the Eastern Cape, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal and Western Cape provinces), Spain (including Canary Islands), Tunisia, Turkey, Uruguay and USA (California) (Farr &amp; Rossman 2023).</p><p>Notes: Based on the phylogenetic analyses of the combined ITS- tef1-tub2 dataset, strain CDP 0075 clustered with the ex-type strain and other strains of  Neofusicoccum australe with high ML-BS/PP values (Figure 5). Sequence comparisons with the ex-type of  N. australe (CMW 6837) for ITS and tef1 showed 100 % and 96.62 %, respectively, sequence similarity and difference in tef1 partial sequence are represented by a single nucleotide change. No tub2 sequence data is available for CDP 0075. Despite numerous attempts with different temperatures and with different organic material introduced on the agar surface, isolate CDP 0075 remained sterile even after long periods of incubation about 2 months. For this reason, morphological comparisons with the ex-type of  N. australe were not possible. Based on the molecular analyses carried in the present study, strain CDP 0075 was identified as  N. australe .  Neofusicoccum australe has not previously been recorded on  Arecaceae and thus a new host record is here reported for  Phoenix canariensis in Portugal (Table 5). The isolate of  N. australe studied here was recorded from foliar lesions of  P. canariensis, but pathogenicity has not been tested.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0397879FFC392908FF649CB1FD5EFC77	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Pereira, Diana S.;Phillips, Alan J. L.	Pereira, Diana S., Phillips, Alan J. L. (2023): Botryosphaeriaceae on palms-a new species of Neodeightonia, N. chamaeropicola, and new records from diseased foliage of ornamental palms in Portugal. Phytotaxa 627 (1): 1921-1935, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.627.1.1, URL: https://phytotaxa.mapress.com/pt/article/download/phytotaxa.627.1.1/51323
0397879FFC3E2909FF649ED5FF56F843.text	0397879FFC3E2909FF649ED5FF56F843.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neofusicoccum cryptoaustrale Pavlic, Maleme, Slippers & M. J. Wingf.	<div><p>Neofusicoccum cryptoaustrale Pavlic, Maleme, Slippers &amp; M.J. Wingf., Persoonia 31: 271 (2013), MycoBank MB512477</p><p>(Figure 12, 13)</p><p>New synonym:  Neofusicoccum stellenboschianum Tao Yang &amp; Crous [as  “ stellenboschiana ”], Fungal Biology 121: 339 (2017), MycoBank MB840561.</p><p>Type: SOUTH AFRICA, Gauteng Province, Pretoria, from branches and leaves of living  Eucalyptus trees ( Myrtaceae), May 2005, H.M. Maleme (holotype PREM 59817, culture ex-type CBS 122813; paratype PREM 59818, culture ex-paratype CMW 20738).</p><p>Sexual morph not reported. See Crous et al. (2013) for illustrations and descriptions of asexual morph.</p><p>Isolate CDP 1565. Sexual morph: Ascostromata produced on palm leaflets in culture within 2 mo of incubation, pseudothecial, globose to subglobose, with a central ostiole, not papillate, uniloculate, black, solitary or aggregated in small groups, intermingled with conidiomata, immersed in the host with only the ostiolar region emerging, thick-walled, wall comprising several layers of textura angularis, outer region of dark brown or brown cells, inner region of hyaline cells lining the locules. Asci bitunicate, with a well-developed ocular chamber and a prominent axial canal, fissitunicate, clavate, broadly rounded at the apex, stipitate, 8-spored, arising from the base of the ascostromata, formed between pseudoparaphyses, 108–174 × 18–24 μm (including stipe). Pseudoparaphyses cylindrical, smooth-and thin-walled, septate, occasionally slightly constricted at the septum, rarely branched at the base, 2–5 μm wide. Ascospores fusoid to ovoid, ends obtuse to subobtuse, smooth- and thin-walled, hyaline and aseptate, with granular contents, irregularly biseriate in the ascus, (6.95–)15.2–20.07(–22.56) × (3.59–)7.79–10.9 μm, 95 % confidence limits = 16.22–18.46 × 8.12–9.22 μm (mean ± SD = 17.34 ± 4.24 × 8.67 ± 2.08 μm), mean ± SD ascospore length/width ratio = 2.01 ± 0.19 (n = 55). Asexual morph: Conidiomata on palm leaflets in culture pycnidial, morphologically similar to ascostromata, globose to subglobose, non-stromatic, uniloculate, black, solitary, occasionally aggregated in small groups, often intermingled with ascostromata, semi-immersed to superficial or immersed in the host becoming erumpent when mature, densely covered by greyish to olivaceous mycelial hairs. Conidiophores mostly reduced to conidiogenous cells, when present, formed from the cells lining the locule wall, hyaline, smooth- and thin-walled, simple, doliiform to subcylindrical, aseptate. Conidiogenous cells hyaline, smooth- and thin-walled, simple, discrete, integrated, cylindrical to subobpyriform, often tapering towards the apex, straight or curved, aseptate, determinate, holoblastic, often indeterminate, enteroblastic, proliferating at the same level giving rise to periclinal thickenings, or rarely proliferating percurrently to form 1 indistinct annellation, (9.59–)11.77–20.84(–22.32) × 2.2–4.92 μm, 95 % confidence limits = 13.54–15.11 × 3.47–3.75 μm (mean ± SD = 14.32 ± 3.04 × 3.61 ± 0.54 μm, n = 50). Conidia fusiform to oval, often widest in the middle or upper third, base subtruncate to bluntly rounded, apex obtuse to subobtuse, smooth- and thin-walled, hyaline and aseptate, rarely becoming 1-septate before germination, with granular contents and conspicuous guttules, 16.79–25.03 × 4.97–7.47 μm, 95 % confidence limits = 20.19–21.14 × 5.80–6.10 μm (mean ± SD = 20.67 ± 1.81 × 5.95 ± 0.57 μm), mean ± SD conidium length/width ratio = 3.51 ± 0.27 (n = 50).</p><p>Culture characteristics: Colonies on 1/2 PDA, reaching 76 mm diam. after 7 d at 20 ℃ in darkness. Surface flat, slightly fluffy, with few aerial mycelia, with filamentous, entire margin, circular shape, whitish to pale, opaque. Reverse pale to yellowish, becoming brownish towards the centre. Turning entirely orangish to olivaceous-grey (surface) and dark brown (reverse) after about 2 w. No diffusible pigment.</p><p>Material examined: PORTUGAL, Lisbon, Parque das Nações, on foliar lesions of segments of  Chamaerops humilis ( Arecaceae), 8 May 2021, Diana S. Pereira (specimen HDP 091, new host and geographical record), living culture CDP 1565 (ITS sequence OQ996235, tef1 sequence OR233672, tub2 sequence OR233690); Parque das Nações, on foliar lesions of segments of  Chamaerops humilis ( Arecaceae), 8 May 2021, Diana S. Pereira (specimen HDP 098), living culture CDP 1968 (ITS sequence OQ996242, tef1 sequence OR233676, tub2 sequence OR233691).</p><p>Hosts:  Arum italicum ( Araceae),  Avicennia marina ( Acanthaceae),  Bruguiera gymnorhiza,  Ceriops tagal ( Rhizophoraceae),  Chamaerops humilis ( Arecaceae),  Eucalyptus sp.,  E. citriodora ( Myrtaceae),  Lumnitzera racemosa ( Combretaceae),  Malus domestica ( Rosaceae),  Mangifera indica ( Anacardiaceae),  Persea americana ( Lauraceae),  Phoenix canariensis ( Arecaceae),  Podocarpus latifolius ( Podocarpaceae),  Prunus armeniaca ( Rosaceae),  Quercus suber ( Fagaceae),  Rhizophora mucronata ( Rhizophoraceae),  Syzygium cordatum ( Myrtaceae),  Vaccinium corymbosum ( Ericaceae),  Vitis sp. and  V. vinifera ( Vitaceae) (Farr &amp; Rossman 2023, present study).</p><p>Distribution: Algeria, Australia, Portugal, South Africa (including the Eastern Cape, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Western Cape provinces) and Spain (Farr &amp; Rossman 2023, present study).</p><p>Notes:  Neofusicoccum stellenboschianum is reduced to synonymy under  N. cryptoaustrale . According to the phylogenetic analyses in this study, isolates of  N. cryptoaustrale and  N. stellenboschianum clustered together in a monophyletic clade supported with high ML-BS value (Figure 5). The ex-type (CBS 122813) and the ex-paratype cultures (CMW 20738) of  N. cryptoaustrale have the following nucleotide similarities with the sequences of the ex-type of  N. stellenboschianum (CBS 110864). On ITS: 99.79 % (475/476) and 99.79 % (475/476, including 1 gap), respectively. On tef1: 99.62 % (264/265) and 99.25 % (263/265), respectively. On tub2: 99.74 % (385/386) and 100 % (386/386), respectively. On rpb2: 96.13 % (571/594) and 100 % (594/594), respectively. Based on the phylogenetic analyses of the combined ITS- tef1-tub2 dataset, the strains CDP 1565 and CDP 1968 clustered with the ex-type, ex-paratype and other authentic strains of  N. cryptoaustrale with high ML value (Figure 5). Sequence comparisons with the ex-type (CBS 122813) and ex-paratype (CMW 20738) strains of  N. cryptoaustrale for ITS, tef1 and tub2 showed 99.37–99.58 %, 98.11–100 % and 99.48-99.74 %, respectively, sequence similarity, and differences were represented by gaps on ITS1, a single base pair change on ITS2 and few base pair changes in both tef1 and tub2 partial sequences. Morphologically, the strains isolated in this study are similar to the holotype of  N. cryptoaustrale from branches and leaves of living  Eucalyptus trees in South Africa (Crous et al. 2013) (Figure 13). Considering the strain characterized here (CDP 1565) and the ex-type strain of  N. cryptoaustrale (CBS 122813), both produce black, solitary pycnidial conidiomata with fusiform, hyaline and aseptate conidia of relatively similar mean size (20.67 × 5.95 μm and 19 × 5.5 μm, respectively) (Crous et al. 2013) (Figure 13). Nevertheless, although 1-septate conidia have been rarely observed, CDP 1565 never produced pigmented conidia such as those described for the ex-type strain (CBS 122813) (Crous et al. 2013) (Figure 13). Thus, based on these morpho-molecular analyses, strains CDP 1565 and CDP 1968 are here reported as representing intraspecific variation of  N. cryptoaustrale . Isolate CDP 1565 also produced fertile ascostromata on palm leaflets in culture after 2 months of incubation and thus the sexual morph of  N. cryptoaustrale is reported here for the first time. The sexual morph of  N. cryptoaustrale is similar to the sexual morph of its sister taxon  N. australe (Phillips et al. 2013), however the ascospores of  N. cryptoaustrale (CDP 1565) are shorter, but wider than those reported for  N. australe (17.34 × 8.67 μm versus 21.9 × 7.6 μm, respectively), displaying in consequence a smaller L/W ratio (2.01 versus 2.9) (Figure 12).  Neofusicoccum cryptoaustrale have been previously reported on  Arecaceae, namely on  Phoenix canariensis in Australia (Cunnington et al. 2007 as  Botryosphaeria australis, later ratified by Burgess et al. 2019). However,  N. cryptoaustrale has not previously been recorded on  Chamaerops humilis and is reported for the first time from Portugal, representing a new host and geographical record (Table 5). The isolates of  N. cryptoaustrale studied here were recorded from foliar lesions of  C. humilis, but pathogenicity has not been tested.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0397879FFC3E2909FF649ED5FF56F843	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Pereira, Diana S.;Phillips, Alan J. L.	Pereira, Diana S., Phillips, Alan J. L. (2023): Botryosphaeriaceae on palms-a new species of Neodeightonia, N. chamaeropicola, and new records from diseased foliage of ornamental palms in Portugal. Phytotaxa 627 (1): 1921-1935, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.627.1.1, URL: https://phytotaxa.mapress.com/pt/article/download/phytotaxa.627.1.1/51323
0397879FFC322906FF649DB5FCF4FE13.text	0397879FFC322906FF649DB5FCF4FE13.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neofusicoccum luteum (Pennycook & Samuels) Crous, Slippers & A. J. L. Phillips, Studies	<div><p>Neofusicoccum luteum (Pennycook &amp; Samuels) Crous, Slippers &amp; A.J.L. Phillips, Studies in Mycology 55: 248 (2006), MycoBank MB500876</p><p>(Figure 14)</p><p>Type: NEW ZEALAND, Bay of Plenty, Te Puke, No 1 Road, DSIR Research Orchard, from lesions on ripe fruit of  Actinidia deliciosa ( Actinidiaceae), 6 Oct 1982, M. J. Wingfield (holotype PREM 57589, culture ex-type CBS 562.92). S. R. Pennycook (holotype of asexual morph PDD 45400, culture ex-type of asexual morph PDDCC 8004). PORTUGAL, Estremadura, Oeiras, Quinta do Marquês, on cane of  Vitis vinifera cv. Galego Dourado ( Vitaceae), Mar 1996, A. J. L. Phillips (holotype of sexual morph LISE 94070, culture ex-type of sexual morph CBS 110299).</p><p>Sexual morph and asexual morph reported. See Phillips et al. (2013) for illustrations and descriptions.</p><p>Isolate CDP 0038. Sexual morph: Undetermined. Asexual morph: Conidiomata on palm leaflets in culture pycnidial, globose to subglobose, non-stromatic, uniloculate, black, solitary, occasionally aggregated in small groups, semi-immersed to superficial, densely covered by greyish to olivaceous mycelial hairs, exuding a creamy, pale mucoid mass or cirrus of conidia. Conidiophores reduced to conidiogenous cells. Conidiogenous cells hyaline, smooth- and thin-walled, simple, discrete, determinate, cylindrical, often tapering towards the apex, straight or curved, aseptate, enteroblastic, proliferating at the same level giving rise to conspicuous periclinal thickenings, rarely proliferating percurrently to form 1–2 annellations, (6.33–)8.45–12.76(–14.62) × 2.34–4.21 μm, 95 % confidence limits = 9.49– 10.64 × 3.18–3.45 μm (mean ± SD = 10.02 ± 1.97 × 3.31 ± 0.43 μm, n = 30). Conidia ellipsoidal to cylindrical, or irregularly cylindrical, often widest in the middle or upper third, ends subobtuse, often base truncate or subtruncate, smooth- and thin-walled, hyaline and aseptate, rarely becoming 1–2(–3)-septate and pale brown before germination, 16.47–22.1 × 5.78–7.78 μm, 95 % confidence limits = 19.23–20.2 × 6.55–6.91 μm (mean ± SD = 19.71 ± 1.37 × 6.73 ± 0.51 μm), mean ± SD conidium length/width ratio = 2.95 ± 0.32 (n = 30).</p><p>Culture characteristics: Colonies on 1/2 PDA, reaching 85 mm diam. after 7 d at 20 ℃ in darkness. Surface flat, with appressed, moderately dense aerial mycelium, with filamentous margin, circular shape, whitish to pale, opaque. Reverse pale to yellowish. Turning entirely dirty white, greyish (surface) and orangish and dark brown (reverse) after about 2 w. Presence of yellowish diffusible pigment.</p><p>Material examined: PORTUGAL, Lisbon, Areeiro, Rua Sarmento de Beires, on foliar lesions of leaflets of  Phoenix canariensis ( Arecaceae), 6 October 2018, Diana S. Pereira (specimen HDP 014, new host record), living culture CDP 0033 (ITS sequence OQ996216, tef1 sequence OR 233664); Areeiro, Rua Sarmento de Beires, on foliar lesions of segments of  Washingtonia filifera ( Arecaceae), 6 October 2018, Diana S. Pereira (specimen HDP 016, new host record), living culture CDP 0038 (ITS sequence OQ996217, tef1 sequence OR 233665); Parque das Nações, on foliar lesions of segments of  Chamaerops humilis ( Arecaceae), 8 May 2021, Diana S. Pereira (specimen HDP 091, new host record), living culture CDP 1568 (ITS sequence OQ996238, tef1 sequence OR 233675); Parque das Nações, on foliar lesions of segments of  Chamaerops humilis ( Arecaceae), 8 May 2021, Diana S. Pereira (specimen HDP 098), living culture CDP 1969 (ITS sequence OQ996243, tef1 sequence OR 233677); Parque das Nações, on foliar lesions of segments of  Chamaerops humilis ( Arecaceae), 8 May 2021, Diana S. Pereira (specimen HDP 099), living culture CDP 2026 (ITS sequence OQ996244, tef1 sequence OR 233678).</p><p>Hosts: Reported from 45 genera in 29 families, including  Acanthaceae ( Avicennia marina),  Actinidiaceae ( Actinidia deliciosa),  Adoxaceae ( Viburnum sp.),  Anacardiaceae ( Mangifera indica),  Araucariaceae ( Araucaria angustifolia),  Arecaceae ( Chamaerops humilis,  Phoenix canariensis,  Washingtonia filifera),  Asteraceae ( Chrysanthemoides monilífera,  Helianthus annuus),  Combretaceae ( Lumnitzera racemosa),  Cupressaceae ( Chamaecyparis lawsoniana,  Cupressus lusitanica,  C. sempervirens,  Juniperus communis,  Sequoia sp.,  S. sempervirens,  Thuja plicata,  Thujopsis dolabrata),  Ebenaceae ( Diospyros kaki),  Ericaceae ( Erica arborea,  Rhododendron sp.,  Vaccinium sp.),  Fabaceae ( Styphnolobium japonicum),  Fagaceae ( Quercus robur),  Lauraceae ( Persea americana),  Malvaceae ( Tilia platyphyllos),  Meliaceae ( Melia azedarach),  Moraceae ( Ficus microcarpa),  Myrtaceae ( Eucalyptus globulus,  Syzygium cordatum),  Oleaceae ( Fraxinus excelsior,  F. ornus,  Olea europaea),  Pinaceae ( Pinus pinea),  Proteaceae ( Banksia sp.),  Proteaceae ( Buckinghamia sp.,  Macadamia integrifolia),  Rhizophoraceae ( Bruguiera gymnorhiza,  Rhizophora mucronata),  Rosaceae ( Crataegus mexicana,  Malus domestica),  Rutaceae ( Citrus sp.,  C. limon,  C. sinensis),  Salicaceae ( Populus alba,  P. nigra,  P. tremula,  Salix fragilis),  Sapotaceae ( Mimusops caffra),  Tamaricaceae ( Tamarix sp.) and  Vitaceae ( Vitis sp.,  V. riparia-rupestris,  V. vinífera) (Farr &amp; Rossman 2023, present study).</p><p>Distribution: Australia, Chile, France, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Portugal, South Africa (including the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal provinces), Tunisia, Uruguay and USA (California) (Farr &amp; Rossman 2023).</p><p>Notes: Based on the phylogenetic analyses of the combined ITS- tef1-tub2 dataset, strains CDP 0033, CDP 0038, CDP 1568, CDP 1969 and CDP 2026 clustered with the ex-type and other strains of  N. luteum with high ML-BS value (Figure 5). Sequence comparisons with the ex-type strain of  N. lutem (CBS 562.92) for ITS and tef1 showed 99.58–100 % and 100 %, respectively, sequence similarity, and differences were represented by gaps on ITS 1 in strains CDP 1568 and CDP 1969. No tub2 sequence data is available for CDP 0033, CDP 0038, CDP 1568, CDP 1969 and CDP 2026. Morphologically, the strains isolated in this study are similar to the holotype of  N. luteum from lesions on ripe fruit of  Actinidia deliciosa in New Zealand (Phillips et al. 2013) (Figure 14). Considering the strain characterized here (CDP 0038) and the ex-type strain of  N. luteum (CBS 562.92), both produce pycnidial conidiomata with ellipsoidal, hyaline and aseptate conidia of remarkably similar mean size, although conidia of CDP 0038 seem to be somewhat wider (19.71 × 6.73 μm and 19.7 × 5.6 μm, respectively) (Phillips et al. 2013) (Figure 14). Nonetheless, L / W ratio of CDP 0038 is lower than that reported for the ex-type strain of  N. luteum (CBS 562.92) (2.95 versus 3.6, respectively) (Phillips et al. 2013). Based on these morpho-molecular analyses, strains CDP 0033, CDP 0038, CDP 1568, CDP 1969 and CDP 2026 are here reported as representing intraspecific variation of  N. luteum .  Neofusicoccum luteum has not previously been recorded on  Arecaceae and thus three new host records are here reported, namely  Chamaerops humilis,  Phoenix canariensis and  Washingtonia filifera (Table 5). The isolates of  N. luteum studied here were recorded from foliar lesions of palms, but pathogenicity has not been tested.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0397879FFC322906FF649DB5FCF4FE13	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Pereira, Diana S.;Phillips, Alan J. L.	Pereira, Diana S., Phillips, Alan J. L. (2023): Botryosphaeriaceae on palms-a new species of Neodeightonia, N. chamaeropicola, and new records from diseased foliage of ornamental palms in Portugal. Phytotaxa 627 (1): 1921-1935, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.627.1.1, URL: https://phytotaxa.mapress.com/pt/article/download/phytotaxa.627.1.1/51323
0397879FFC302907FF649CC9FB2EF897.text	0397879FFC302907FF649CC9FB2EF897.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neofusicoccum parvum (Pennycook & Samuels) Crous, Slippers & A. J. L. Phillips, Studies	<div><p>Neofusicoccum parvum (Pennycook &amp; Samuels) Crous, Slippers &amp; A.J.L. Phillips, Studies in Mycology 55: 248 (2006), MycoBank MB500879</p><p>(Figure 15)</p><p>Type: NEW ZEALAND, Bay of Plenty, Te Puke, No 3 Road, Baldwin Orchard, on small dead branch of  Populus nigra ( Salicaceae), 17 Dec 1981, S. R. Pennycook (holotype PDD 45438, culture ex-type ATCC 58191).</p><p>Sexual morph and asexual morph reported. See Phillips et al. (2013) for illustrations and descriptions.</p><p>Isolate CDP 1380. Sexual morph: Undetermined. Asexual morph: Conidiomata on palm leaflets in culture pycnidial, globose, non-stromatic, uniloculate, black, solitary, rarely aggregated in small groups of 2–3, immersed to semi-immersed, often covered by whitish mycelial hairs. Conidiophores mostly reduced to conidiogenous cells, when present, formed from the cells lining the locule wall, hyaline, smooth- and thin-walled, simple, cylindrical to subcylindrical, aseptate. Conidiogenous cells hyaline, smooth- and thin-walled, simple, discrete, integrated, determinate, cylindrical, often slightly tapering towards the apex, straight or curved, aseptate, holoblastic, often enteroblastic, proliferating at the same level giving rise to inconspicuous periclinal thickenings, 7.63–12.99(–14.07) × 1.86–3.71 μm, 95 % confidence limits = 10.37–11.27 × 2.66–2.92 μm (mean ± SD = 10.82 ± 1.45 × 2.79 ± 0.43 μm, n = 30). Conidia ellipsoidal to fusoid, ends subacute, occasionally apex obtuse, often base truncate or subtruncate, smooth- and thin-walled, hyaline and aseptate, 15.79–20.47 × 4.5–6.32 μm, 95 % confidence limits = 17.37–18.23 × 5.45–5.69 μm (mean ± SD = 17.80 ± 1.20 × 5.57 ± 0.34 μm), mean ± SD conidium length/width ratio = 3.21 ± 0.34 (n = 30).</p><p>Culture characteristics: Colonies on 1/2 PDA, reaching 85 mm diam. after 7 d at 20 ℃ in darkness. Surface flat, raised towards the margin, with fluffy, dense aerial mycelium, with filamentous, entire margin, circular shape, whitish to pale towards the centre, opaque. Reverse orangish. No diffusible pigment.</p><p>Material examined: PORTUGAL, Lisbon, Parque das Nações, Jardim das Palmeiras, on foliar lesions of leaflets of  Phoenix dactylifera ( Arecaceae), 16 October 2018, Diana S. Pereira (specimen HDP 045, new host record), living culture CDP 0382 (ITS sequence OQ996223, tef1 sequence OR233681, tub2 sequence OR 233688); Parque das Nações, on foliar lesions of leaflets of  Phoenix roebelenii ( Arecaceae), 8 May 2021, Diana S. Pereira (specimen HDP 088, new host record), living culture CDP 1380 (ITS sequence OQ996229, tef1 sequence OR233680, tub2 sequence OR 233689).</p><p>Hosts: Reported from more than 100 genera in 61 families, including  Acanthaceae ( Avicennia marina),  Actinidiaceae ( Actinidia chinensis,  A. deliciosa),  Anacardiaceae ( Magnifera indica,  Pistacia vera,  Sclerocarya birrea subsp. caffra),  Apiaceae ( Ferula communis,  Torilis arvensis),  Araliaceae ( Pseudopanax laetus),  Araucariaceae ( Araucaria heterophylla,  Wollemia nobilis),  Arecaceae ( Phoenix dactylifera,  P. roebelenii),  Asteraceae ( Artemisia sp.),  Cannabaceae ( Cannabis sativa),  Celastraceae ( Gymnosporia buxifolia),  Celastraceae ( Maytenus hookeri),  Combretaceae ( Lumnitzera racemosa,  Terminalia catappa,  T. sericea),  Cupressaceae ( Chamaecyparis lawsoniana,  C. obtusa,  C. pisifera,  Cryptomeria japonica,  Cupressus funebris,  C. sempervirens,  Juniperus communis,  Sequoia sempervirens,  Sequoiadendron giganteum,  Thuja occidentalis,  T. plicata,  Thujopsis dolabrata),  Ebenaceae ( Diospyros kaki),  Ericaceae ( Rhododendron decorum,  R. niveum,  Vaccinium sp.,  V. corymbosum × darrowi,  V. corymbosum),  Euphorbiaceae ( Hevea brasiliensis),  Euphorbiaceae ( Vernicia fordii),  Fabaceae ( Schizolobium parahyba var. amazonicum,  Senna siamea,  Vachellia karroo),  Fagaceae ( Quercus agrifolia,  Q. ilex,  Q. robur,  Q. rubra,  Q. suber),  Ginkgoaceae ( Ginkgo biloba),  Grossulariaceae ( Ribes sp.),  Hippocastanaceae ( Aesculus hippocastanum),  Icacinaceae ( Nothapodytes nimmoniana),  Juglandaceae ( Carya illinoinensis, Julgans sp.,  J. regia,  J. sinensis),  Lamiaceae ( Platostoma palustre),  Lauraceae ( Cinnamomum camphora,  C.verum,  Persea americana,  Phoebe sheareri,  P.zhennan),  Lecythidaceae ( Barringtonia racemosa),  Liliaceae ( Lilium lancifolium),  Linaceae ( Linus usitattisimum),  Linnaeaceae ( Kolkwitzia amabilis),  Lythraceae ( Punica granatum),  Magnoliaceae ( Magnolia sp.),  Malvaceae ( Theobroma cacao),  Melastomataceae ( Tibouchina sp.,  T. lepidota,  T. urvilleana),  Meliaceae ( Melia azedarach),  Moraceae ( Ficus carica,  F. microcarpa),  Musaceae ( Musa sp.),  Myristicaceae ( Myristica fragrans),  Myrtaceae ( Blepharocalyx salicifolius,  Corymbia citriodora,  C. torelliana,  Eucalyptus sp.,  E. urograndis,  E. camaldulensis,  E. cinerea,  E. citriodora,  E. cloeziana,  E. dorrigoensis,  E. dunnii,  E. globulus,  E. grandis,  E. microcorys,  E. nicholii,  E. nitens,  E. obliqua,  E. ovata,  E. pellita,  E. robusta,  E. saligna,  E. scoparia,  E. smithii,  E. tereticornis,  E. urophylla,  Heteropyxis natalensis,  Metrosideros polymorpha,  Myrcianthes cisplatensis,  Myrciaria tenella,  Myrrhinium atropurpureum var. octandrum,  Psidium guajava,  P. pubifolium,  Syzygium cordatum,  S. guineense,  S. paniculatum,  Xanthostemon sp.),  Nyssaceae ( Camptotheca acuminata),  Oleaceae ( Ligustrum lucidum,  Olea africana,  O. europaea),  Pandanaceae ( Pandanus sp.),  Pinaceae ( Cedrus atlantica),  Pinaceae ( Picea abies,  Pinus canariensis,  P. halepensis,  P. nigra,  P. patula,  P. pinaster,  P. pinea),  Pittosporaceae ( Pittosporum tobira),  Platanaceae ( Platanus acerifolia,  P. hybrida),  Podocarpaceae ( Afrocarpus falcatus,  Podocarpus henkelii),  Proteaceae ( Buckinghamia sp.,  Grevillea sp.,  G. robusta,  Leucadendron sp.,  L. salignum × laureolum,  Leucospermum sp.,  Macadamia integrifolia,  Protea sp.,  P. compacta × magnifica,  P. cynaroides,  P. laurifolia,  P. lepidocarpodendron,  P. repens,  Telopea sp.),  Rhizophoraceae ( Bruguiera gymnorhiza,  B. sexangula,  Rhizophora mangle,  R. mucronata),  Rosaceae ( Amygdalus persica,  Eriobotrya japonica,  Fragaria × ananassa,  Malus sp.,  M. domestica,  M. pumila,  M. sylvestris,  Prunus americana,  P. armeniaca,  P. avium,  P. cerasoides,  P. dulcis,  P. laurocerasus,  P. persica,  P. persica var. nucipersica,  P. salicina,  Pyrus bretschneideri,  P. communis,  P. pyrifolia,  Rhaphiolepis indica,  Rosa sp.,  Rubus fruticosus,  R. idaeus),  Rubiaceae ( Coffea arabica),  Rutaceae ( Citrus sp.,  C. limon,  C. reticulata,  C. sinensis),  Salicaceae ( Populus sp.,  P. nigra,  P. nigra var. italica,  Salix sp.),  Santalaceae ( Santalum album),  Sapindaceae ( Acer pseudoplatanus,  Dimocarpus longan,  Koelreuteria paniculata,  Nephelium lappaceum),  Solanaceae ( Solanum melongena),  Taxaceae ( Taxus chinensis var. mairei),  Theaceae ( Camellia sinensis),  Thymelaeaceae ( Aquilaria sinensis),  Ulmaceae ( Ulmus × hollandica) and  Vitaceae ( Vitis sp.,  V. heyneana,  V. vinifera) (Farr &amp; Rossman 2023, present study).</p><p>Distribution: Algeria, Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Ecuador, Eswatini, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Indonesia, Iran, Italy (including Sicily), Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Montenegro, New Zealand, Peru, Portugal (including Madeira), Puerto Rico, Serbia, South Africa (including the Mpumalanga, KwaZulu-Natal, Eastern Cape, Western Cape and Gauteng provinces), South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Uruguay, USA (Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Texas), Venezuela, Zambia and Zimbabwe (Farr &amp; Rossman 2023).</p><p>Notes: Based on the phylogenetic analyses of the combined ITS- tef1-tub2 dataset, strains CDP 0382 and CDP 1380 clustered with the ex-type and other strains of  N. parvum with moderate ML-BS and high PP values (Figure 5). Sequence comparisons with the ex-type strain of  N. parvum (ATCC 58191) for ITS, tef1 and tub2 showed 99.58–99.79 %, 99.21 % and 99.05–99.52 %, respectively, sequence similarity, and differences were represented by few base pair changes on ITS 1 and tef1 and tub2 partial sequences. Morphologically, the strains isolated in this study are similar to the holotype of  N. parvum from a dead branch of  Populus nigra in New Zealand (Phillips et al. 2013) (Figure 15). Considering the strain characterized here (CDP 1380) and the ex-type strain of  N. parvum (ATCC 58191), both produce globose, pycnidial conidiomata with ellipsoidal, hyaline and aseptate conidia of remarkably similar mean size (17.80 × 5.57 μm and 17.1 × 5.5 μm, respectively) and equal L / W ratio (3.2) (Phillips et al. 2013) (Figure 15). Nevertheless, although septate hyaline or pigmented old conidia have been described for the ex-type strain (ATCC 58191), CDP 1380 only produced hyaline, aseptate conidia (Crous et al. 2013) (Figure 15). Based on these morpho-molecular analyses, strains CDP 0382 and CDP 1380 are here reported as representing intraspecific variation of  N. parvum .  Neofusicoccum parvum has not previously been recorded on  Arecaceae and thus two new host records are here reported, namely  Phoenix dactylifera and  P. roebelenii (Table 5). Although Taylor &amp; Hyde (2003) recorded  N. parvum (as “  Fusicoccum parvum ”) on  Arecaceae hosts, including  Trachycarpus fortunei in Australia and China and an unidentified palm in China, no molecular data has been associated with these records, which were identified as  N. parvum based solely on morphology. Since morphology is inadequate to define genera or identify species in  Botryosphaeriaceae (Phillips et al. 2013, Slippers et al. 2013, 2014, 2017), the validity of this report is yet to be determined. The isolates of  N. parvum studied here were recorded from foliar lesions of palms, but pathogenicity has not been tested.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0397879FFC302907FF649CC9FB2EF897	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Pereira, Diana S.;Phillips, Alan J. L.	Pereira, Diana S., Phillips, Alan J. L. (2023): Botryosphaeriaceae on palms-a new species of Neodeightonia, N. chamaeropicola, and new records from diseased foliage of ornamental palms in Portugal. Phytotaxa 627 (1): 1921-1935, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.627.1.1, URL: https://phytotaxa.mapress.com/pt/article/download/phytotaxa.627.1.1/51323
0397879FFC362902FF649822FCA8FAFB.text	0397879FFC362902FF649822FCA8FAFB.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Sardiniella Linaldeddu, A. Alves & A. J. L. Phillips, Mycosphere	<div><p>Sardiniella Linaldeddu, A. Alves &amp; A.J.L. Phillips, Mycosphere 7: 900 (2016), MycoBank MB817511</p><p>Sardiniella was introduced by Linaldeddu et al. (2016) with  S. urbana on a branch canker of  Celtis australis from Italy as the type species. It accommodates species that are morphologically similar to, but phylogenetically distinct from  Dothiorella and  Diplodia . Species in  Sardiniella are characterized by hyaline, aseptate conidia that become pigmented and 1-septate with age. While in  Dothiorella and some  Diplodia species, namely those with aseptate brown conidia, the conidia become pigmented while still attached to the conidiogeneous cells, this has not yet been observed in  Sardiniella . Moreover, the conidial wall is thicker in  Diplodia than in  Sardiniella (Linaldeddu et al. 2016) . So far,  Sardiniella species have been reported as pathogens and saprobes of woody hosts. While  S. urbana was isolated from diseased ornamental  Celtis australis trees on the island of Sardinia, Italy (Linaldeddu et al. 2016), the remaining species have been isolated from decaying plant material (Hyde et al. 2017, Chen et al. 2021, Dissanayake et al. 2021). Currently  Sardiniella includes four species based on both morphological and phylogenetic analyses, viz.  S. urbana (Linaldeddu et al. 2016),  S. celtidis (Hyde et al. 2017),  S. guizhouensis (Chen et al. 2021) and  S. elliptica (Dissanayake et al. 2021) .</p><p>Sardiniella urbana Linaldeddu, A. Alves &amp; A.J.L. Phillips, Mycosphere 7: 900 (2016), MycoBank MB817512 (Figure 16)</p><p>Type: ITALY, Sassari, isolated from a branch canker of  Celtis australis ( Cannabaceae), 9 Sep 2013, Benedetto T. Linaldeddu (holotype LISE 96308, culture ex-type CBS 141580).</p><p>Sexual morph not reported. See Linaldeddu et al. (2016) for illustrations and descriptions of asexual morph.</p><p>Isolate CDP 1658. Sexual morph: Undetermined. Asexual morph: Conidiomata on palm leaflets in culture pycnidial, globose to subglobose, non-stromatic, uniloculate, black, solitary, occasionally aggregated in small groups of 2–3, superficial, or immersed in the host becoming erumpent when mature, covered with mycelial hairs, thick-walled. Conidiophores reduced to conidiogenous cells. Conidiogenous cells lining the pycnidial cavity, hyaline, smooth- and thin-walled, simple, discrete, determinate, cylindrical to broadly lageniform, straight or slightly curved, aseptate, rarely 1-septate, enteroblastic, proliferating at the same level giving rise to periclinal thickenings, or proliferating percurrently giving rise to 1–2 indistinct annelations, 5.69–13.72 × 2.71–5 μm, 95 % confidence limits = 8.12–9.39 × 3.69–4.11 μm (mean ± SD = 8.76 ± 1.77 × 3.90 ± 0.60 μm, n = 30). Conidia ellipsoid to broadly ellipsoid, few broadly obovoid or slightly reniform, rounded ends, few with subobtuse base, slightly narrower in the middle, thick-walled, hyaline and aseptate, becoming pale brown to brown and 1-septate, rarely 2-septate, with age, eguttulate, 23.71–29.42 × 9.36–11.01 μm, 95 % confidence limits = 25.67–26.63 × 9.84–10.15 μm (mean ± SD = 26.15 ± 1.34 × 9.99 ± 0.44 μm), mean ± SD conidium length/width ratio = 2.62 ± 0.21 (n = 30).</p><p>Culture characteristics:  Colonies on 1/2 PDA, reaching 73 mm diam. after 7 d at 20 ℃ in darkness. Surface flat, with sparse aerial mycelium, with entire, slightly undulate margin, circular shape, whitish to pale, opaque. Reverse pale to yellowish. Turning entirely dark grey to black after about 2 w. No diffusible pigment .</p><p>Material examined: PORTUGAL, Lisbon, Parque das Nações, on foliar lesions of leaflets of  Phoenix reclinata ( Arecaceae), 8 May 2021, Diana S. Pereira (specimen HDP 093, new host and geographical record), living culture CDP 1658 (ITS sequence OQ996239, tef1 sequence OR 233682).</p><p>Hosts:  Celtis australis ( Cannabaceae) (Linaldeddu et al. 2016) and  Phoenix reclinata ( Arecaceae) (present study).</p><p>Distribution: Italy (Linaldeddu et al. 2016) and Portugal (present study).</p><p>Notes: Based on the phylogenetic analyses of the combined ITS- tef1 dataset, strain CDP 1658 clustered with the ex-type strain and other strains of  Sardiniella urbana with maximum ML-BS/PP values (Figure 6). Sequence comparisons with the ex-type of  S. urbana (CBS 141580) for ITS and tef1 showed 100 % and 98.81 %, respectively, sequence similarity and differences are represented by few base pair changes in tef1 partial sequence. Morphologically, CDP 1658 isolated in this study is similar to the holotype of  S. urbana from a branch canker of  Celtis australis in Italy (Linaldeddu et al. 2016). Both produce globose pycnidial conidiomata with ellipsoid, thick-walled, hyaline and aseptate conidia, that become brown and 1–2-septate with age. Nonetheless, conidia of CDP 1658 are somewhat longer, but narrower than those of the ex-type of  S. urbana (CBS 141580) (mean = 26.15 × 9.99 μm versus 23.5 × 12 μm, respectively) (Linaldeddu et al. 2016) (Figure 16). Thus, based on these morpho-molecular analyses, strain CDP 1658 was identified as  S. urbana .  Sardiniella urbana has only been reported from  Celtis australis ( Cannabaceae) in Italy (Linaldeddu et al. 2016). In the present study,  S. urbana is reported on  Phoenix reclinata ( Arecaceae) in Portugal, representing a new host and geographical record (Table 5). The isolate of  S. urbana studied was recorded from foliar lesions of  P. reclinata, but pathogenicity has not been tested.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0397879FFC362902FF649822FCA8FAFB	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Pereira, Diana S.;Phillips, Alan J. L.	Pereira, Diana S., Phillips, Alan J. L. (2023): Botryosphaeriaceae on palms-a new species of Neodeightonia, N. chamaeropicola, and new records from diseased foliage of ornamental palms in Portugal. Phytotaxa 627 (1): 1921-1935, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.627.1.1, URL: https://phytotaxa.mapress.com/pt/article/download/phytotaxa.627.1.1/51323
