papulospores and my sincerest apologies
Kelly Patrice Collins
kpcollin at students.wisc.edu
Wed Nov 6 11:27:40 EST 1996
David Geiser <dgeiser at mendel.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>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.
Yes, but are they indeed to disperse propagules or are they sclerotia of
some sort? I am unsure and, thus far, so is the literature.
>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
But the cells within do not go on to form anything that at all resembles
spores, so I am brought back to the above question.
>> By the way, the reference to anal-retentiveness is not without
>>precedence in Mycology.
>Wait a minute - is the term hyphenated? :-)
Yikes!!! I am sorry I said that. I did not mean for anyone to take
offense. I just thought it was funny that I was being called on the
exact meaning of a term for something no one seems to know exactly what
More information about the Mycology