From BIOSCI-REQUEST Fri Nov 3 01:39:02 1995 Return-Path: BIOSCI-REQUEST Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id BAA10696 for rust-mil-list; Fri, 3 Nov 1995 01:39:02 -0800 Received: from bordeaux.inra.fr (bordeaux.inra.fr [192.93.65.1]) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id BAA10687 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 1995 01:38:26 -0800 Received: (from delye@localhost) by bordeaux.inra.fr (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA06635 for rust-mil@net.bio.net; Fri, 3 Nov 1995 10:00:43 +0100 Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 10:00:43 +0100 From: CHRISTOPHE DELYE (sriv) Message-Id: <199511030900.KAA06635@bordeaux.inra.fr> To: rust-mil@net.bio.net Subject: Grape powdery mildew in India: references? Content-Length: 471 Hi, all! I'm looking for references concerning the arrival of grape powdery mildew (Uncinula necator or oidium tuckeri or Erysiphe necator...) in India. This should have occured between 1945 and 1950, and a reference from Uppal (author name) should exist, but I can't find it. If you have any references or idea or where to find such references (person to contact, databases...) they will be welcome. Many thanks in advance. Christophe. E-mail: delye@bordeaux.inra.fr From BIOSCI-REQUEST Wed Nov 8 13:44:23 1995 Return-Path: BIOSCI-REQUEST Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id NAA25723 for rust-mil-list; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 13:44:23 -0800 Received: from morgan.angis.su.OZ.AU (morgan.angis.su.OZ.AU [129.78.25.38]) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id NAA25714 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 13:44:18 -0800 Received: (from pbic00@localhost) by morgan.angis.su.OZ.AU (8.6.10/8.6.6) id IAA12768 for Rust-mil@net.bio.net; Thu, 9 Nov 1995 08:42:53 +1100 Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 08:42:53 +1100 From: "Plant Breeding Inst." Message-Id: <199511082142.IAA12768@morgan.angis.su.OZ.AU> To: Rust-mil@net.bio.net Content-Length: 1094 TO: Rust-mil@net.bio.net Subject: Resistance to stem rust: gene symbol The following proposal is to designate a gene for resistance to stem rust in wheat. Sr44 is derived from Agr intermedium and has been in a stem rust differential in Australia for many years. P. graminis tritici populations tend to be polymorphic (or is it bimorphic?) for this resistance gene. The Catalogue listing will be as follows: Sr44 (9644). 7DS [T 7DS-7Ai#1L.7Ai#1S] (9644). v: Line 86.187 su: Group 7 Alien substitution lines with 7Ai#1 and 7Ai#1S (660). ad: TAF2 = L1 (9645). 9644. Friebe, B. et al. 1995. Manuscript. 9645. Cauderon Y, Saigne B and Dauge M 1973. The resistance to wheat rusts of Agropyron intermedium and its use in wheat improvement. p.401-407. In: Sears ER and Sears LMS. Proc. 4th Int. Wheat Genetics Symp. Uni of Mo, Columbia USA. R.A. McIntosh Additional mailing list: R. Rees R. Sawhney S.K. Nayar J. le Roux From BIOSCI-REQUEST Fri Nov 10 04:23:36 1995 Return-Path: BIOSCI-REQUEST Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id CAA16818 for rust-mil-list; Fri, 10 Nov 1995 02:00:27 -0800 Received: (from biohelp@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id CAA16799 for rust-mil@net.bio.net; Fri, 10 Nov 1995 02:00:10 -0800 Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 02:00:10 -0800 From: BIOSCI Administrator Message-Id: <199511101000.CAA16799@net.bio.net> To: rust-mil@net.bio.net Subject: IMPORTANT: BIOSCI miniFAQ This is a new "miniFAQ" designed to answer the questions that come up the *most frequently*. The main BIOSCI FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) is accessible on the World Wide Web at URL http://www.bio.net/. Contents: -------- 1) What to do about "spams," i.e., junk mail, ads, etc. 2) Examples of subscribing and unsubscribing to the mailing lists. 3) How to access BIOSCI/bionet newsgroup archives. 4) The BIOSCI user address and research interest directory. 1) What to do about "spams," i.e., junk mail, ads, etc. ------------------------------------------------------- BIOSCI is a set of parallel USENET newsgroups (the "bionet" groups) and mailing lists. The same postings are distributed on both media (except for a small number of mailing-list-only groups at net.bio.net). Unfortunately it is becoming a despicable practice on the Internet (by a few people out to make a fast buck) to do automated mass postings to thousands of newsgroups and mailing lists. These attempts to grab free advertising are refered to as "spams" in the usual, somewhat boneheaded, net terminology. USENET is more susceptible to this practice, and many spams originate on the USENET groups and then are passed on to the mailing lists. However, spammers also get lists of mailing addresses and hit these too, so neither medium is immune. What should you do personally if you get junk mail? --------------------------------------------------- Just delete it and move on without reading it further. Filing a protest is becoming increasingly useless because spammers are often disguising the addresses where the messages are sent from. Unless you really understand Internet mail systems, your attempt at protest by sending replies to the message will often end up being sent to the address of an innocent person that the spammer is victimizing. What can BIOSCI/bionet do to protect its newsgroups? ---------------------------------------------------- The only solution currently available is to moderate the newsgroup. If this newsgroup is already moderated, then you are in good shape. Moderation protects the newsgroups from about 95% of the spams that are being sent to date. This means that someone has to take the time to review each message before it goes out. We have set up software here that simply allows the moderator to forward to an address at net.bio.net messages that (s)he wishes to have distributed. This takes no more time than that needed to read the message and pass it on, say about 1 min. per message. Most newsgroups currently have a discussion leader who is responsible for their newsgroup. The discussions leaders and their e-mail addresses are listed in the BIOSCI Information Sheet which is available on the Web at http://www.bio.net/. If a newsgroup is being hit with too many junk postings, please contact the discussion leader for that group and see if there is interest in moderating the group. Please do not assume that by simply posting a complaint to the newsgroup itself, anyone on the BIOSCI staff will act on your complaint. With close to 100 newsgroups to run, the BIOSCI staff has to rely on the discussion leaders of each newsgroup to report problems directly to us at biosci-help@net.bio.net. We will moderate any of our newsgroups if the discussion leader tells us that the readership of the group wishes to do so and if a moderator is willing to do the work. For most BIOSCI/bionet groups, this entails only a few minutes of work each day. Moderating a newsgroup will resolve probably 95% of the junk postings. Unfortunately there are easy ways for determined spammers to override the moderation mechanism. We are working on new systems to provide access to our newsgroups over the WWW. These should be available soon, probably November 1995, and will allow you to use your Web browser to look at the news postings. While this will not stop spammers from trying to post to the groups, this will give you yet another way, besides using USENET news, to keep the junk out of your personal mail files. 2) Examples of subscribing and unsubscribing to the mailing lists. ------------------------------------------------------------------ PLEASE NOTE: The BIOSCI management does NOT act on subscription/unsubscription requests that are posted improperly to the newsgroups and mailing lists. People who do this only bother everyone on the lists to no avail. Please be sure to follow the proper procedures below. Gory details are in the BIOSCI Information sheets on the Web at http://www.bio.net. Below we give an example utilizing the METHODS-AND-REAGENTS list at both of our two BIOSCI sites: Users in the Americas and Pacific Rim countries who use the BIOSCI ------------------------------------------------------------------ node at computer net.bio.net: ---------------------------- A) Determine the "listname" which is the <=8 character mail address ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ for the group. These can be found in the BIOSCI Info. Sheet. For the METHODS-AND-REAGENTS group the mailing address is methods@net.bio.net. The listname is the portion of the address to the left of the @ sign, i.e., "methods". The listname is used with the "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" commands illustrated below. B) Mail all commands in the body of a mail message addressed to biosci-server@net.bio.net. Do NOT send commands to the newsgroup posting addresses! Leave the Subject: line blank, any text on it will be ignored. C) In the body of your message put one or more of the following commands with an "end" command on the last line, e.g., subscribe methods unsubscribe methods end Do NOT put your e-mail address or other text on these lines. The server only allows you to cancel your subscription if the address on your mail header matches the address on our mailing list. Please ask for help at biosci-help@net.bio.net if your address has changed, e.g., if you know you are on the list but the server tells you that you are not a member. Users in Europe, Africa, and Central Asia who use the BIOSCI node at -------------------------------------------------------------------- computer daresbury.ac.uk (also known as dl.ac.uk): ------------------------------------------------- To subscribe and unsubscribe to/from the BIOSCI lists, you need to specify the full USENET newsgroup name with "bionet-news." prepended. The USENET newsgroup names are listed in the BIOSCI Information sheet on the Web at http://www.bio.net/. For the METHODS-AND-REAGENTS list the USENET newsgroup name is bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts, thus the appropriate commands are sub bionet-news.bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts unsub bionet-news.bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts These commands are included in a message addressed to mxt@dl.ac.uk, NOT to the newsgroup mailing addresses. As usual, include the text in the body of the message as text on the Subject: line is ignored. To unsubscribe from all the lists at the UK node, use unsub bionet-news Please note that if the address in the list is different than the one in your mail message header, you will not be able to unsubscribe by this method. If you have problems, please mail biosci@daresbury.ac.uk. 3) How to access BIOSCI/bionet newsgroup archives. -------------------------------------------------- Back postings of all BIOSCI/bionet newsgroups can be found on the World Wide Web at URL http://www.bio.net/. There are several searchable newsgroup indices at this site. E-mail users can search the BIOSCI archives by using our waismail e-mail server. For instructions send the message help to waismail@net.bio.net. Leave the Subject: line blank (anything entered on the Subject: line is ignored). 4) The BIOSCI user address and research interest directory. ----------------------------------------------------------- Please take this opportunity to add your name, address, and research interest information to the BIOSCI User Address Database if you have not already done so. You can fill out the address form directly through our Web page at URL http://www.bio.net/adrform.html. The address database is reindexed nightly for WWW access (the URL is http://www.bio.net/). If you are not directly on the Internet but can reach it by e-mail, please use our waismail server to access the user directory. waismail use is described above. You can also request a user address form by e-mail from biosci-help@net.bio.net. Please check your database entry from time-to-time to see if your address information is still up-to-date. Because of our limited personnel resources, we ask that you resubmit a *complete* form to revise your entry; we only replace complete entries and do not have resources to edit old forms. Sincerely, Dave Kristofferson BIOSCI/bionet Manager biosci-help@net.bio.net From BIOSCI-REQUEST Tue Nov 14 08:50:31 1995 Return-Path: BIOSCI-REQUEST Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id IAA05813; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 08:50:31 -0800 Received: from mgate.nic.agro.nl (mgate.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.12]) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id IAA05810 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 08:50:29 -0800 From: R.A.DAAMEN@IPO.DLO.NL Received: from IPOALP (IPOALP) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.0-4 #12026) id <01HXN11NM9XS0035DU@AGRO.NL> for Rust-mil@net.bio.net; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 16:10:55 +0000 (MED) Received: from IPO.DLO.NL by IPO.DLO.NL (PMDF V4.3-7 #7552) id <01HXN11TE58W0001W6@IPO.DLO.NL>; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 16:11:03 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 16:11:03 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: To: Rust-mil@net.bio.net Message-id: <01HXN11TF9QQ0001W6@IPO.DLO.NL> X-VMS-To: IN%"Rust-mil@net.bio.net" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT From BIOSCI-REQUEST Thu Nov 23 03:42:20 1995 Return-Path: BIOSCI-REQUEST Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id DAA29108; Thu, 23 Nov 1995 03:42:20 -0800 Received: from sun2.mhs-relay.ac.uk (sun2.mhs-relay.ac.uk [128.86.8.35]) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id DAA29063 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 1995 03:41:06 -0800 X400-Received: by mta sun2.mhs-relay.ac.uk in /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD= /C=gb/; Relayed; Thu, 23 Nov 1995 11:39:25 +0000 X400-Received: by mta JII.MUAS in /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/; Relayed; Thu, 23 Nov 1995 10:31:59 +0000 X400-Received: by mta JII in /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/; Relayed; Thu, 23 Nov 1995 10:32:00 +0000 X400-Received: by mta arcs.bbsrc.ac.uk in /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/; Relayed; Thu, 23 Nov 1995 11:40:45 +0000 X400-Received: by /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/; converted (ia5 text (2)); Relayed; Thu, 23 Nov 1995 11:39:59 +0000 Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 11:39:59 +0000 X400-Originator: james.brown@bbsrc.ac.uk X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:; X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/;2559311023111995/A58663/JII] X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Content-Identifier: 119BBA9F3900 From: James Brown (Tel ) Message-ID: <2559311023111995/A58663/JII/119BBA9F3900*@MHS> To: Rust-mildew (Non Receipt Notification Requested), Steve Leath (Non Receipt Notification Requested), Richard Korf (Non Receipt Notification Requested) Subject: That Blumeria thing Sensitivity: Private I asked: } Can anyone explain why North American mildew researchers have } taken to calling Erysiphe graminis, Blumeria graminis? And is } this a taxonomically valid name? } } I've heard two things which have some relevance to the change of } name. One is that the Blumeria name was conjured up in the 1950's } by taxonomists working in Leningrad. E.graminis was assigned to a } new genus on the basis of its asexual morphology, i.e. the } primary germ tube. However, fungal taxonomists (I believe) are } meant to use the sexual stage, where it exists, for assigning } things to genera. } } The other thing I heard (more or less a rumour) that some } gathering of mycologists had decided to suspend the Blumeria } genus name until the nomenclature of Erysiphales as a whole had } been thoroughly revised. } } Any opinions? If there's no good reason for using Blumeria, } shouldn't stick to Erysiphe, to avoid confusion in the } literature? Thanks for all the replies. Various people have asked me to post a summary, so this is it (well, more of a compilation really). I would have done it earlier but... lectures... meetings... grant applications... you probably know the feeling! I've discussed the various contributions at the end of this message. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting with Helms Joergensen, Risoe, Denmark: } The powdery mildew fungus has been known as Erysiphe graminis DC. } for many decades. The russian P.N. Golovin established Blumeria in } 1958 and Speer in 1973 provided a full description of Blumeria } Golov. ex Speer. We thus have two principally equal descriptions and } two equally legal names on the same fungus. Yarwood (1975) noted E. } graminis as nomen conservandum implying that this name be retained } in preference to names proposed later. This has, however, not been } accepted at an international botanical congress and not been } included on the list of accepted names. This is required. Thus B. } graminis is an obligate synonym for E. graminis (Kapor 1967) and } vice versa meaning that the two names are equally good, and each } author may use any one of the two names. } ( - from J.P. Skou,Nomenclature committee of the Danish Plant } Pathology Society, 1991). So that explains how the name came about and why it hasn't been universally accepted, and says that both names are legitimate. ----------------------------------------------------------------- And then from Shauna Somerville, Stanford, USA: } Hi James, Hanlin has published a reference book with the Blumeria } designation for E. graminis. } } Hanlin RT (1990) Blumeria Golovin ex. E.O. Speer. Pages 24-25 in: } Illustrated Genera of Ascomycetes. The American Phytopathological } Society Press, St. Paul, MN } } I would agree with you that it is unwise to change the name of E. } graminis at this point in time. So I got hold of Hanlin's book. He says that "Blumeria" differs from Erysiphe (and all other genera of Ascomycetes) in "setose secondary mycelium, digitate haustorium and the restricted host range. The anamorph is also unique in being the only species of Oidium with a swollen basal cell." Setose = covered with bristles (Hawksworth, Sutton & Ainsworth [1983] Ainsworth & Bibby's Dictionary of the Fungi, 7th Edn, Commonwealth Mycological Institute). Secondary mycelium = (of basidiomycetes, according to Hawksworth et al) dikaryotic mycelium resulting from plasmogamy in the primary mycelium. i.e. yes, Blumeria is distinguished from Erysiphe mainly on anamorph characters, with the exception of that setose secondary mycelium. The fact that the name is in Hanlin's book, published by the APS, may explain why North American mildew workers, in particular, have started using the new name. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Then I had several messages from Richard Korf, Cornell, USA, who's a card-carrying fungal taxonomist: } The conidial state is unlike any other "Oidium" (and probably should } be placed in a genus of its own) and the haustoria are unlike any } other Erysiphe! My guess is that the biology is also quite } different. } - - - - - - - } } I am in full agreement that both Erysiphe graminis and Blumeria } graminis are correct and valid names under the Code.... I know of no } modern taxonomically-inclined mycological authors who use Erysiphe } for the grass pathogens. They may all be wrong, and those who prefer } Erysiphe may be correct. Taxonomic differences of viewpoint are } perfectly valid... The PREDICTIVE value of taxonomy is lost when } people lump fungi together under one generic name that are not } necessarily close relatives... Nor does the fact that I think those } who don't accept Blumeria are dead wrong mean that I am right or } that they are wrong. We just have different taxonomic opinions. } Resistance to name changes is natural. If someone really believes } that E. graminis and, say, E. cichoracearum belong in the same } genus, the generic name they should choose for both is Erysiphe. If } and only if they believe these are not congeneric (and that is a } taxonomic, not a convenience decision!) then they must adopt both } genera, as modern mycologists seem to have done. } } - - - - - - } } ... you are all free to use your own taxonomic judgements on generic } limits. You know mine. I'm not sure you have considered what other } authors have decided (recently). Both name for the grass pathogen } are nomenclaturally correct. There is no provision for a group to } judge correctness of taxonomic decisions for plants-including } fungi-(unlike the situation under the zoological code of } nomenclature). - - - - - - - Richard Korf gave me some references to Blumeria: Zheng R-y (1985) Mycotaxon 22: 209-263. This describes the haustoria, basal cell & cleistothecial appendages. Also has a key for distinguishing genera of Erysiphaceae. (Hanlin's book has a key too.) Also a book (in Chinese!) by Zhang. And a book by U. Braun (1987) A monograph of the Erysiphales (powdery mildews), J. Cramer, Berlin. This gives taxonomically relevant characters, a key to genera and descriptions of genera and species. Summarising Richard's comments, the conidial state of E.g. is very different to that of the other Erysiphes (well-known to most cereal mildew workers, I think). Whether or not the differences mean that E.g. should be in a different genus to other Erysiphes is a matter of opinion (again, both names are valid) but mycologists have by and large decided that it should be in a difference genus. Finally, there is no mechanism for enforcing group decisions about which of two valid, alternative names should be used. -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- >From Kurt Zeller, Manhattan (KS), USA } > Can anyone explain why North American mildew researchers have } > taken to calling Erysiphe graminis, Blumeria graminis? And is } > this a taxonomically valid name? } } I think a lot of it has to do with the acceptance or non-acceptnace } of the species as described in Bruan's Monograph (1987). I have } been told (by one of my former graduate committee members) that } Erysiphe graminis has been more acceptable, but that Blumeria was } probably more biologically correct. It is generally accepted that } Erysiphe is a polyphytic and biologically artificial taxonomic } grouping, but it is hard to fight the convention. } } > Any opinions? } } My personal opinion is that was should seriously revise (at least) } the genus Erysiphe to reflect what morphology, and host-range data, } as well as more recent molecular data, have been telling us about } phylogenetic relationships in Erysiphe all along (as well as among } other powdery mildew taxonomic groups). Biological speices } concepts, or generic concepts, suggest that E. graminis may be } differentiated enough to be considered a separate group } (=Blumeria?). There is also considerable evidence suggesting that } groups like E. cichoracearum / E. galeopsidis & E. polygoni have } some considerable differentiation amongst themselves. Perhaps these } should also be reconsidered taxonomically? } } E. cichoracearum at the least shows some considerable rDNA } differentiation among samples taken from different host families or } genera (some published, but mostly in prep data, personal } observations). Usig biological species concepts might make us have } to pretty seriously revise powdery mildew taxonomy and nomenclature. ----------------------------------------------------------------- And from Steve Leath, North Carolina: } Although I am not an authority on all of this , I think I } can shed some light on this matter. The credit for the } reclassification of the cereal Erysiphe into Blumeria goes to the } Germans (Speer) in the mid seventies in a quite good review of these } fungi. He had some good mycological reasons for separating out the } cereal mildew fungi. I was not sure if they were good enough to } warrant corruption of such and established group. So I had a } mycologist read the work for me and he felt it was a very could case } for reclassification. It based on the fact that only this group of } "Erysiphes" have lobed haustoria, produce conidia with a swollen } basal cell and have a setose mycelium. Recently (since 1989) the } mycologists are supporting Blumeria and therefore I changed. For } example in two new reference books, widely used in our country, } Blumeria is used. See: Illustrated Genera of Ascomycetes, by } Rchard T. Hanlin, 1990, APS Press, and Farr's book on Fungi on } Plants and Plant Products in the United States lists Blumeria as a } synonym. I don't care what we do but I would like to see more } agreement on this and the Mildew Conference would be a good place } to discuss this. Perhaps a mycologist could reiew this and lead a } discussion? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lastly, Urs Braendle, Zuerich, Switzerland: } So this is what Stefan [Keller] thinks about the Blumeria stuff: (Stephan Keller did an M.Sc. project on molecular variation between Erysiphe spp.) } First he read the Braun monograph on the Erysiphales and got the } impression that the cereal mildews a r e a special group because } of their swollen basal cell and the fingers on the haustoria. } } Then, he looked for consensus sequences for PCR primers and found } again that they could be different (I think b-tubulin) } } Then he amplified the SINE element from cereal mildews (no dicots). } Because the form species have distinct families of those (which, } according to the theory of these things, they should not if there } was sex among them from time to time), he concluded that they are } reproductively isolated and should therefore be considered different } species. So, as a consequence, he proposed that if the taxonomy was } changed, we could take the opportunity and use the official new } names, therefore calling them Blumeria hordei, Blumeria tritici and } so on. ----------------------------------------------------------------- So what do I think? 1. My first question was, why have North American mildew workers starting calling the beast Blumeris graminis? The answer to that may be Hanlin's book, published by the APS. Curiously enough, however, APS' list of Common Names of Plant Diseases uses _Erysiphe_ graminis, for barley, oat, rye and wheat mildew. See http://www.scisoc.org/apspress/common_names/ 2. Yes, Blumeria graminis is a valid name. So is Erysiphe graminis. Richard Korf thinks we'd be wrong, but we can continue using E.g. until (according to Helms Joergensen) an International Botanical Congress tells us not to. So if an editor tells you to use one or the other, you can (for the time being) tell him/her to get lost. Like most of the others who've replied, I don't much care _what_ we call it, so long as there isn't confusion in the literature. My concern is that if a lot of people use Blumeria, but it turns out not to be justified as a generic name, then the literature will get really confused. You only have to see what has happened to eyespot to understand this. There is a strong argument for not changing a name until one is really certain that the new name is justified. It seems to be that the taxonomic opinion about Erysiphe/Blumeria is largely balancing one character against another. Is that really enough to justify changing a well-established name? Until the question is truly resolved, perhaps I could suggest that if one uses Blumeria graminis in the title and text of a paper, one should also put Erysiphe graminis in the keywords, to assist teaching of students and retrieval of literature from computer databases? 3. I'm confused about the criteria for assigning E.g. to a new genus. Myco-taxonomists (is that a word??) say that they name teleomorph genera on teleomorph characters and likewise anamorphs. However, in this case, Braun and Hanlin support the re-classification of E.g. even though two of the three characters that distinguish Blumeria from Erysiphe are anamorphic (i.e. the haustorium and the basal cell). The only telial character is that setose secondary mycelium. I speculate that the digitate haustoria could be an adaptation to the grasses' responses to infection by mildew (as could the primary germ tube, which is one of the most distinctive features of E.g. but isn't mentioned by the taxonomists). There could be some reason why, on dicots, powdery mildews push out several germ tubes _fast_ but on cereals, E.g. takes its time about attaching and taking up water before making an appressorium. For instance, E.g. doesn't induce systemic resistance in cereals, so perhaps there would be a benefit in a spore establishing one strong infection site rather than trying quickly to make lots of infections, as other Erysiphes do. However, if the haustorium is a functional adaptation to grasses as hosts - and therefore could have evolved from the less complex haustoria of other Erysiphes - that removes its value as a taxonomic character. In this scenario, E.g. would have descended from other Erysiphes, rather than be a sister group. 5. My view is that we should try to resolve this in such a way that the taxonomy reflects the phylogeny. Given that there are rather few useful morphological characters, we need comparative sequencing data on E.g. and other Erysiphes, to know whether or not E.g. is a sister group of the other Erysiphe spp or not. If it _is_ a sister group, then that seems to me the time to decide whether or not it's sufficiently distinct to be put into another genus. 6. I shudder at the thought of putting each special form of E.g. into a different species! Are data on (rapidly evolving) SINE sequences enough? What about the fact that the f.sp.'s can be crossed and produce viable progeny? In the terms used by zoologists, they would be no more differentiated than sibling species, and probably less. James Brown _______________________________________________________ Dr J. K. M. Brown, Cereals Research Department, John Innes Centre, Colney Lane, Norwich, NR4 7UH, England Phone: (+44)(0) 1603 452571. Fax: (+44)(0) 1603 502241. E-mail: james.brown@bbsrc.ac.uk From BIOSCI-REQUEST Thu Nov 23 05:39:07 1995 Return-Path: BIOSCI-REQUEST Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id FAA07965; Thu, 23 Nov 1995 05:39:07 -0800 Received: from sun2.mhs-relay.ac.uk (sun2.mhs-relay.ac.uk [128.86.8.35]) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id FAA07923 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 1995 05:38:59 -0800 X400-Received: by mta sun2.mhs-relay.ac.uk in /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD= /C=gb/; Relayed; Thu, 23 Nov 1995 13:21:18 +0000 X400-Received: by mta JII.MUAS in /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/; Relayed; Thu, 23 Nov 1995 13:21:44 +0000 X400-Received: by mta JII in /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/; Relayed; Thu, 23 Nov 1995 13:21:47 +0000 X400-Received: by mta arcs.bbsrc.ac.uk in /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/; Relayed; Thu, 23 Nov 1995 13:22:41 +0000 X400-Received: by /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/; converted (ia5 text (2)); Relayed; Thu, 23 Nov 1995 13:22:03 +0000 Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 13:22:03 +0000 X400-Originator: james.brown@bbsrc.ac.uk X400-Recipients: rust-mil@net.bio.net X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/;4444211323111995/A59471/JII] X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Content-Identifier: 119BBB552A00 From: James Brown Message-ID: <4444211323111995/A59471/JII/119BBB552A00*@MHS> To: Rust-mildew (Non Receipt Notification Requested) In-Reply-To: <01HXZGNDG7R6000AES@IPO.DLO.NL> Subject: Re: Re: That Blumeria thing Sensitivity: Private Gert Kema asked me: } James, } I'm sorry, what are SINE elements? Thought others might like to know too. Short Interspersed Non-trancribed Elements. A class of dispersed repeat sequence. (Had to ask 4 people before I got an answer to this one!) From BIOSCI-REQUEST Mon Nov 27 06:08:25 1995 Return-Path: BIOSCI-REQUEST Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id GAA26008; Mon, 27 Nov 1995 06:08:25 -0800 Received: from merit-mx1.telemail.net (merit-mx1.telemail.net [198.70.61.62]) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id GAA26004 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 1995 06:08:19 -0800 From: Bill.Hollins@pbigb.sprint.com X400-Received: by /PRMD=LANGATE/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=GB/; Relayed; Mon, 27 Nov 1995 08:12:00 -0500 X400-Received: by /PRMD=LANGATE/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=GB/; Relayed; Mon, 27 Nov 1995 08:12:00 -0500 X400-Received: by /PRMD=LANGATE/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=GB/; Relayed; Mon, 27 Nov 1995 08:12:00 -0500 X400-Received: by /PRMD=LANGATE/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=GB/; Relayed; Mon, 27 Nov 1995 08:12:00 -0500 Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 08:12:00 -0500 X400-Originator: Bill.Hollins@pbigb.sprint.com X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:; X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=LANGATE/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=GB/;Mon Nov 27 08:12:40 199503] X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Content-Identifier: Surplus isolates Message-ID: <"Mon Nov 27 08:12:40 199503*/G=Bill/S=Hollins/OU=1321CACS/O=TMGB.PBI/PRMD=LANGATE/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=GB/"@MHS> To: rust-mil@net.bio.net Subject: Surplus isolates. My isolate collection is now large and I am rapidly running out of storage space. Checking through them it is clear that I have a number which are surplus to my needs and wonder if anyone would be interested in any/all of them. The fungi are: Puccinia striiformis f. sp tritici Puccinia recondita More than 50 isolates of each, stored as spores in gelatin capsules in liquid nitrogen, dating from 1970 onwards. In most cases the race is defined. Amounts will vary from c. 2 - 50 capsules (0.1 to 2.5g) per isolate. Once these are out of nitrogen they will rapidly lose (within 1-2 days) viability so transport could be difficult unless you can arange to collect from Cambridge,UK in a nitrogen fridge. We have a limited number of the isolates vacuum dried in glass ampoules - these can go through the post OK. Pseudocercosporella herpotrichoides (I know it's not strictly part of this 'net' - but pass info. on to colleagues please) Near 100 isolates dating from 1973-1989 stored mostly on agar under mineral oil in McCartney bottles. Isolates are defined as W- or R- pathogenic and often as senitive or insensitive to benomyl. Any takers?