papulospores

David Geiser dgeiser at mendel.berkeley.edu
Thu Nov 7 19:30:18 EST 1996


In article <55qe9s$vj2 at news.doit.wisc.edu> Kelly Patrice Collins,
kpcollin at students.wisc.edu writes:
>>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.

Then I really question their functional similarity.  In fact,
the more I think about it,  the more trouble I have with the idea
of calling any sort of asexual structure analagous to a cleisto-
thecium.  There are certainly some adaptations related specifically
to sex,  and a sclerotium-type thing isn't going to fulfill them
all.
 
>>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.

Me too.  Homologous maybe,  analagous,  I don't think so.

>Yikes!!!  I am sorry I said that.  I did not mean for anyone to take 
>offense.

None was taken.  In fact,  I appreciate your bringing up an interesting
topic of discussion.


Dave Geiser



More information about the Mycology mailing list