Amendments of the limits of the genera Gyromitra and Pseudorhizina, with the description of a new species, Gyromitra montana Harri Harmaja Department of Botany, Uni ersity of Helsinki, SF-00170 H elsinki, Finland \HARMAJA, H. 1973: Amendments of the limits of the genera Gywmitra and Pseudo­ rhizina, with the descr~ption of a new species, Gyromi tra montana. - Karstenia 13 : 48--58. - Some new observations, relevant for specific, subgeneric and generic taxonomy, are presented on the characters of the species of Gyromitra Fr. and Pseudorhizina J ac. (Disco­ mycetes, Pezizales), and the taxonomic significance of earlier known diagnostic features is dealt with and partly re-evaluated . On the basis of this information, it is considered that Pseudorhizina is a valid, independent genus, and that besides the type species, P. sphaero­ spora (Peck) Pouz., -it should also contain Gyromitra californica ( Phil!.) Rait . A tabulation comparing Gyromitra and Pseudorhizina. is presented. It is also emphasized that, as pre i­ ously suggested by the author, the genera Discina (Fr.) Fr. and Neogyromitra Imai should be included in Gyromitra, together forming a subgenus of their own, Gyromitra subg. Discina. Gyromitra gigas sensu McKnight is considered different from the true G. gigas, and is described as a new species, Gyromitra montana Harmaja. Seven new combinations, necessary due to the amendments of the two genera, are made: Gyromitra subgenus Discina (Fr. ) Hai'IIlaja, Gyromitra apiculatula. (McKn.) Harmaja, Gyromitra korfii (Raitv.) Har­ maja, Gyromitra macrospora (Bub.) Harmaja, Gyromitra olympiana (Kan.) Harmaja, Gyromitra warnei (Pecl: ) Harmaja and Pseudorhizina ca.lifornica ( Phil!. ) Harmaja. I. Pseudorhizina Jac . In my earlier paper on the delimitation of species is indicated also by their macroscopic the genera of the family Rhizinaceae Bon. features. Having observed some additional (HA RMAJA 1969a) I included the genus Pseu­ features separating C. sphaerospora and C. dorhizina Jac. in the genus Cyromitra Fr. californica from the rest of the Cyromitra (nom. conserv.) . However, at the same time species, and re-evaluated the earlier known I reported, evidently for the first time, that facts, I now consider that there is justifica­ the type species of Pseudorhizina, \ iz. Cyro­ tion for accepting the genus Pseudorhizina, mitra sphaerospora (Peck) Sacc., and C . in order to accommodate . these two species. calif arnica ( Phill. ) Raitv. differed from the At present this genus is monotypic a nd is rest of the species of Cyromitra (sensu latis­ retained (e.g., EcKBLAD 1968 ) only because simo) in having no cyanophilic perispore­ of the spherical shape of the spores of its periplasm complex outside their true spore type species, but, as is shown below, I cannot wall. That structure is lacking during all accord this character the slightest diagnostic stages of spore development in these two value at the generic level! species, while in the rest of the species it gets Modern taxonomists specialized in the developed towards spore maturity, first cup-fungi ha e usually placed P. sphaero­ appearing at the spore ends. I also mentioned spora (Peck) Pouz. and C. californica in that a close relationship between these two different genera, though the striking resem- 48 blances in their macroscopic and microscopic hidden by the conspicuous de Bary bubble features (some of the latter were then still (in P. sphaerospora they may be observed unknown) were pointed out by SMITH (1949: in many immature spores and occasional 153, sub Helvella ) in North America, where mature ones devoid of de Bary bubbles), are both species occur. Even the striking red observed as a fairly distinct guttule at each staining of the stipe base, also reported in end of the spores in G. californica but may some European collections of P. sphaerospora be represented by only one larger drop in (e.g., PouzAR 1961, RAHM 1970 ), is an almost P. sphaerospora. In both species the position constant feature in both species. PouzAR of the largest drop or drops is usually not ( 1961) gives the status of forma to the red­ symmetrical (see Fig. 1: a, b in H ARMAJA stiped ascocarps of P. sphaerospora, but no­ 1969a). One other difference between the thing will be gained through such a nomencla­ species is the much wider di~tribution of P. tural procedure, especially as it has not been sphaerospora, G. californica being restricted proved that the presence/absence of the red to northwestern North America. In addition, colour would depend on genetic factors. In­ Dr. SMITH, who has field experience of both deed, I do not know at present of any other species, writes (SMITH 1949 ) that P. sphaero­ morphological differences between the two spora usually grows on decaying wood, while species than a few sporal ones. the substrate of G. californica is more or less The spores of P. sphaerospora are com­ moist soil, either disturbed or undisturbed. pletely globose and rather small, being 8.0- Apart from possible minor differences in the 12 .0 [liD in diameter, and the half-mature anatomical features of the fruit body, a slight and mature spores, at least in dried speci­ phenological difference might possibly be mens, each possess one central to slightly ec­ revealed if extensive material of both species centric de Bary bubble (visible at least in from climatically similar areas were available water, 5 % KOH, Melzer's reagent. and cotton far comparison (does P. sphaerospora gene­ blue; I do not know whether these de Bary rally occur somewhat later in the spring?) . bubbles, already observed by me before the For the reasons presented above, I consider publication of my earlier paper but not H elvella sphaerospora Peck and H elvella ca­ mentioned in it, have previously been report­ lifornica Phill. congeneric, being the only ed in these species). In G. californica the two species belonging to the genus Pseudo­ spore shape is elliptical, slightly inequilateral; rhizina ]ac., which accordingly is considered the spores are larger, ca. 13.5- 17 .5x7.5- valid. 9.5 [liD, and only a very small proportion In Table 1. I have summarized the .most contain one de Bary bubble towards maturity, important diagnostic differences between the mostly asymmetrically located. As a result of redefined genera Pseudorhizina and Gyromit­ the different shapes of the spores of the two ra (the distinctions between Pseudorhizina species, the inconspicuous sporal oil drops, and the two genera H elvella and Rhizina when present at all and visible without being Fr. being more readily apparent) . II. Gyromitra Fr. Recently there has been a general trend BENEDIX ( 1969) has adopted a completely among taxonomists to reduce the number of different approach, splitting genera exten­ the genera of the family Rhizinaceae (e.g., sively, but unfortunately some of his solutions EcKBLAD 1968, HARMAJA 1969a, RAITVIIR appear to be extremely artificial, e.g. the 1970, McKNIGHT 1971, SvRCEK & MoRAVEC location of the species perlata and leuco­ 1972, KoRF 1972 ). While mostofthese authors xantha in different genera, and the attri­ amalgamate t!he genus N eogyromitra Imai bution of Discina and Rhizina to different with the genus Discina (Fr.) Fr., M cKNIGHT families. DISSING ( 1972 ) also prefers narrow reduces the number of genera in a different generic concepts and keeps Discina and Neo­ way; he unites the Gyromitra and Neogy­ gyromitra apart. romitra species because of their distinct pileus I am still of the opinion that Discina and and stipe in Gyromitra, but keeps Discina Neogyromitra should not only be joined apart, in irs classical concept, i.e. accommo­ with each other, but also be merged in Gy­ dating discoid, indistinctly stipitate species. romitra, which becomes much more homo- 49 Table 1. A comparison of the most important characters separating the genera Pseudorhizina Jac. and Gyromitra Fr. Pseudorhizina Gyromitra 1. Underside of the »cap»l very finely whi t~s h granulose or glabrous as seen by the naked eye tornentose 2. Stipe with very prominent, high, sharp- smooth or with less conspicuous, low, edged ribs continuing far outwards on more or less blunt-edged ribs the underside of the cap, resembling those of H elvella acetabulum 3. Stipe base in fresh ma-1 very often strikingly red never with red colouration ture fruit bodies 4 . Length of most mature under 17 fA-ill over 17 fA-ill spores (excluding any perispore) 5. Cyanophilic perispore-1 absent I present periplasrn complex 6. Contents of unripe moderately cyanophilic cyanophobic to weakly cyanophilic spores, the oil drops ex- eluded (before any peri- spore-periplasm has sur- rounded the spores) 7. Oil drops in spores from not always distinct; when present their always present, with a fixed sym- dried fruit bodies position very often asymmetrical, their metrical position and size, usually also number and size also being more or constant number within species less variable even within species 8. De Bary bubbles in present towards maturity, either in a!- absent spores from dried fruit most all spores, or m a small pro- bodies portion 9. Paraphyses in KOH fading to more or less hyaline in a few distinctly coloured, fading more slow- (e.g. , 5 %) minutes, their contents sometimes re- ly, either red-brown due to encrusted taining some of the original colour and/or more or less homogeneous in- and then being very pale greyish tracellular pigment, or with more or brown, and homogeneous less granular yellowish-brown contents 10. Excilpular tissue of ap- not reviving easily, many hyphae re- reviving more or less easily, hyphae propriately dried fruit rnaining collapsed, perhaps at least readily becoming inflated, having bodies as observed m partly because they seem to have so- more or less thin walls heated cotton blue rnewhat thickened walls 11. Cyanophilic »septal conspicuous, being common and of scattered at most, often practically belts» (seep.