David Geiser dgeiser at
Mon Nov 4 12:22:53 EST 1996

In article <v02140b02aea2779e4b7c@[]> John,
jmurphy at TFM.FMNH.ORG writes:

>Ainsworth and Bisby
>(1983) define the papulospore as a small rounded propagule comprising one
>or more enlarged central cells surrounded by a sheath of smaller cells.
>The question remains (for me, anyway), do these central cells act as
>conidia?  If so, then functionally a papulospore is similar to a

If the cells act as dispersed propagules,  then I agree that it
would indicate a degree of functional similarity.  Enough to call
them analagous?  I guess so.

Another question is the phylogenetic placement of Papulaspora.  If
it's aligned with the Plectomycetes,  then is it reasonable to
suspect that the papulaspore is a modified cleistothecium?  If
it is,  then I think we're back in the realm of homology.  I
don't know of any molecular or other data on the subject.  The
AInsworth and Bisby definition sounds like a young cleistothecium
to me.

>   By the way, the reference to anal-retentiveness is not without
>precedence in Mycology.

Wait a minute - is the term hyphenated?  :-)

Dave Geiser,  unabashed anal-retentive

More information about the Mycology mailing list