Diaporthe tulliensis R. G. Shivas, Vawdrey & Y. P. Tan

Diaporthe tulliensis R. G. Shivas, Vawdrey & Y. P. Tan, Persoonia 35: 301 (2015) Fig. 6 Description. Saprobic on decaying Bambusa. Sexual morph: Undetermined. Asexual morph: Conidiomata 91–148 × 311–974 μm (x ̄ = 120 × 583 μm, n = 20), pycnidial, scattered or aggregated, embedded in host surface, slightly erumpent through host surface, 1–3 - locular conidioma, nearly flat, elongated, discoid, or variable in shape, black, consisting of hyaline, thin-walled cells of textura angularis, outer layer thick walled. Conidiophores reduced to conidiogenous cells. Conidiogenous cells 4–16 × 1.2–2.6 μm (x ̄ = 7.5 × 1.8 μm, n = 40), cylindrical, unbranched, aseptate, smooth, straight or slightly curved, tapering towards the apex, wider at base, hyaline. Alpha conidia 4.1–7.8 × 1.7–3.1 μm (x ̄ = 5.8 × 2.5 μm, n = 40), apex bluntly rounded, 1–2 - guttulate, mostly bi-guttulate, oval or oblong to ellipsoid, hyaline, smooth, base obtuse to subtruncate. Beta and Gamma conidia not observed. Culture characteristics. Colonies on PDA, reaching 40 mm diam., after 2 weeks at 25 ° C, initially white, turning olivaceous grey after 7–10 days, darker at the centre and marginal area, lacking aerial mycelium; reverse, olivaceous grey bordered by dark margins. Material examined. Thailand, Chiang Mai Province, Mae Taeng District, on dead terrestrial stem of Bambusa (Poaceae), 19 November 2022, J. Louangphan, MJ 11 (MFLU 23–0475); living culture, MFLUCC 24–0524 = MFLUCC 23–0301. Hosts. Actinidia spp. (Actinidiaceae), Alangium kurzii (Cornaceae), Bambusa sp. (Poaceae), Bougainvillea glabra (Nyctaginaceae), Celtis formosana (Ulmaceae), Morinda officinalis (Rutaceae), Tectona grandis (Lamiaceae), Theobroma cacao (Malvaceae), Soil, Vitis vinifera (Vitaceae) (Chang et al. 2005; Crous et al. 2015; Bai et al. 2017; Doilom et al. 2017; Yang et al. 2018; Manawasinghe et al. 2019; Tennakoon et al. 2021; Luo et al. 2022; this study). Distribution. Australia, China, Korea, Thailand (Chang et al. 2005; Crous et al. 2015; Bai et al. 2017; Doilom et al. 2017; Yang et al. 2018; Manawasinghe et al. 2019; Tennakoon et al. 2021; Luo et al. 2022; this study). Notes. In the phylogenetic analysis, our isolates (MFLUCC 23–0301 and MFLUCC 24–0524) clustered with D. tulliensis isolates (MFLUCC 14–1139, JZB 320128, and BRIP 62248 a) with 100 % ML / 1.00 BPP support (Fig. 1). Our isolate has a similar morphology to D. tulliensis isolates but differs from D. tulliensis in the size of conidiomata (up to 500 µm (= D. celtidis and D. tulliensis) vs. up to 510 µm (= D. hubeiensis) vs. 135–330 μm (= D. alangii) vs. 50–380 μm (= D. morindae) vs. 725–820 μm diam. (= D. tectonae )) (Crous et al. 2015; Doilom et al. 2017; Yang et al. 2018; Manawasinghe et al. 2019; Luo et al. 2022). Our isolate also differs due to the absence of beta conidia, which has been reported in some D. tulliensis isolates (Chang et al. 2005; Crous et al. 2015; Doilom et al. 2017; Manawasinghe et al. 2019). Therefore, we report our isolate as a new host record of D. tulliensis.