papulospores

Eric Robb Siegel esiegel at UNIX1.SNCC.LSU.EDU
Fri Nov 8 14:20:58 EST 1996


On 8 Nov 1996, in response to Kelly Patrice Collins, David Geiser wrote, 
among other things: 

> >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.

Yeah, but isn't it true that some species of Aspergillus were long 
recognized as making sclerotium-type things, and it was not until someone 
opened up one of those developing sclerotium-type things and found asci 
that they realized that those sclerotium-type things were cleistothecia?

For that matter, if propagule dispersal is a criterion, how does being 
locked up inside a cleistothecium aid dispersal?

Is there any chance that what Kelly has are real cleistothecia, not just 
"analogous structures"? 

Eric Siegel



More information about the Mycology mailing list