Stromatolinea phaselina (Mont.) K. Habib & Q. R. Li, 2024

Habib, Kamran, Zhou, Xin, Zeng, Wenyu, Zhang, Xu, Hu, Hongmin, Wu, Qianzhen, Liu, Lili, Lin, Yan, Shen, Xiangchun, Kang, Jichuan & Li, Qirui, 2024, Stromatolinea, a new diatrypaceous fungal genus (Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Xylariales, Diatrypaceae) from China, MycoKeys 108, pp. 197-225 : 197-225

Stromatolinea phaselina (Mont.) K. Habib & Q. R. Li comb. nov.

Sphaeria phaselina Mont. , Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., sér. 4 3: 129 (1855) (Basionym). Synonym.

= Diatrype phaselina (Mont.) Rappaz , Mycol. Helv. 2 (3): 442 (1987). Synonym. 1

Notes.

Stromatolinea phaselina was first described and illustrated by Montagne in 1855 based on a collection from Guyana. Rappaz (1987) conducted a detailed analysis of various species that had been reported under different names (given above as synonyms). He reviewed their descriptions and type materials, though some of type material were lost. Rappaz (1987) synonymized E. kusanoi and E. bambusina with Eutypa hypoxantha and grouped these along with Sphaeria phaselina and Eutypella hypoxantha under the broader name Diatrype phaselina (Mont.) Rappaz. The morphological character of this taxon also aligns with those of Stromatolinea , providing compelling support for its placement within the Stromatolinea taxonomic framework.

Morphologically, Stromatolinea phaselina resembles S. grisea in having yellow entostromatic tissue above and white tissue between or below the perithecia. However, there are no reports of pseudostromata presence, detailed stromata morphology, or the number of perithecia per stromata in the published description of Diatrype phaselina ( Rappaz 1987) . Furthermore, descriptions and synonymized accounts of this species report very short asci sizes, measuring 25–35 × 5–7 μm. This is problematic because the family is known to typically possess long asci. This gap in detailed morphological data limits our ability to fully understand and differentiate Diatrype phaselina from other species. Without a detailed description and access to type material or DNA data, we cannot definitively classify it within the key of the genus.

The synonyms of this species are not updated in Index Fungorum and Mycobank, where they are still listed as separate species. Given Rappaz (1987) thorough analysis of historical descriptions and most of the original materials, we consider his classification / synonyms of the species to be well-founded and reliable.