Gongronella pamphilae Y. P. Tan, Bishop-Hurley & R. G. Shivas

Gongronella pamphilae Y. P. Tan, Bishop-Hurley & R. G. Shivas Fig. 6 Etymology. Named after Pamphilae of Epidaurus (ca. 1 st century AD), a historian of Egyptian descent who lived in Greece. Description. Colonies growing slowly on PDA in darkness at 25 ° C, reaching 36.6–44.6 mm in diameter in seven days, white, regular at edge and cottony in the centre, reversely milky white. Rhizoids hyaline, branched, irregular. Stolons absent. Sporangiophores on aerial mycelia, erect or slightly curved, unbranched or slightly branched (1–2 times), 3.7–154.9 × 1.4–4.1 μm, hyaline, smooth, mostly aseptate, no more than two-septate. Fertile sporangia hyaline or light yellow, spherical, 13.8–30.8 μm in diameter, smooth and deliquescent-walled, leaving a collar after releasing sporangiospores. Columellae mostly hemispherical, 1.8–4.7 × 2.0–7.7 μm, sometimes arc-shaped, 0.5–1.6 × 3.3–4.6 μm, occasionally subglobose, 4.8–6.4 × 5.9–6.9 μm, hyaline, smooth. Collars distinct, 1.0–5.1 μm wide. Apophyses hyaline, smooth, variously shaped, mostly subglobose, 5.7–8.1 × 5.6–9.0 μm, sometimes ellipsoidal, 4.8–6.9 × 4.8–6.1 μm. Sporangiospores not uniform, hyaline, smooth, reniform, 3.0–5.5 × 1.8–3.4 μm, ovoid, 2.5–5.6 × 1.8–3.7 μm. Chlamydospores present, ellipsoidal. Giant cells intercalary, globose, 4.0–8.1 μm in diameter. Zygospores not found. Additional specimen examined. China • Hainan Province, Lingshui Li Autonomous County, Shizhi Village Road (18.70178 ° N, 109.83679 ° E), from soil sample, 10 April 2023, Yi-Xin Wang (specimen HMAS 352732, living culture CGMCC 3.27027, SAUCC 4031-2). GenBank accession numbers. CGMCC 3.27027 (ITS, PP 195845; LSU, PP 195946; TEF, PP 850086; ACT, PP 933935; RPB 1, PP 850081), and SAUCC 4031-2 (ITS, PP 195846; LSU, PP 195947; TEF, PP 850085; ACT, PP 933936; RPB 1, PP 850082). Note. Based on phylogenetic analyses of ITS + LSU + TEF + ACT + RPB 1 DNA sequences, the two isolates of the new record species Gongronella pamphilae form an independent clade with full support (MLBV = 100; Fig. 1), which is closely related to G. pamphilae (MLBV = 100; BI = 1, Fig. 1). In ITS, the two isolates differ from G. pamphilae by only 2 base pairs. As no morphological descriptions were provided for the G. pamphilae in its protologue, we classified the two isolates together as members of G. pamphilae just based on molecular phylogenetic analyses. Consequently, we provide herein a supplemental description for the species.