papulospores and my sincerest apologies

[Kelly Patrice Collins]

David Geiser <dgeiser at mendel.berkeley.edu> wrote:


Hello, David:

>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
>to me.

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 
to call.

Sincerely, Kelly