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
>>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.
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
None was taken. In fact, I appreciate your bringing up an interesting
topic of discussion.
More information about the Mycology