Tubeufia hechiensis Y.Z. Lu, J.C. Kang & K.D. Hyde
Index Fungorum number: IF 554903; Facesoffungi number: FoF 04758
Etymology: “hechiensis” referring the collecting site.
Holotype: HKAS 97443
Saprobic on submerged decaying wood in a freshwater stream. Sexual morph Undetermined. Asexual morph Hyphomycetous, helicosporous. Colonies on the substratum superficial, effuse, gregarious, white. Mycelium composed of partly immersed, partly superficial, hyaline to pale brown, septate, abundantly branched hyphae, with masses of crowded, glistening conidia. Conidiophores macronematous, mononematous, flexuous, cylindrical, branched, septate, 50–210 μm long, 4.5–6.5 μm wide, hyaline to pale brown, smooth-walled. Conidiogenous cells holoblastic, mono- to polyblastic, integrated, sympodial, intercalary or terminal, cylindrical, with denticles, 12–16 μm long, 4–5 μm wide, hyaline to pale brown, smooth-walled. Conidia solitary, pleurogenous, helicoid, rounded at tip, 45–55 μm diam. and conidial filament 4–5 μm wide (x̄ = 51 × 4.7 μm, n = 20), 230–280 μm long, loosely coiled 1–2 times, becoming loosely or uncoiled in water, indistinctly multi-septate, guttulate, hyaline. (Lu et al. 2018)
Culture characteristics: Conidia germinating on water agar and germ tubes produced from conidia within 12 h. Colonies growing on PDA, circular, with flat surface, edge entire, reaching 23 mm in 3 weeks at 28 °C, pale brown to brown in PDA medium. Mycelium superficial and partially immersed, branched, septate, hyaline to pale brown, smooth.
Material examined: CHINA, Guangxi Province, Hechi City, on submerged decaying wood in a freshwater stream, 18 May 2016, Yong-Zhong Lu, XSL05 (HKAS 97443, holotype; GZAAS 16–0084, isotype), ex-type living culture, MFLUCC 17–0052, GZCC 16–0072.
Notes: Tubeufia hechiensis is morphologically characterized by loosely coiled conidia similar to T. sympodihylospora but can be easily distinguished by its conidiophore and conidiogenous cell morphology. Tubeufia sympodihylospora have sympodial conidiogenous cells with a truncate shape after conidial secession but T. hechiensis lacks this characteristic. Phylogenetically, T. hechiensis shares a sister relationship to T. taiwanensis and support them as distinct species. They differ in morphology of conidiophores, conidiogenous cells and conidia as well, and hence substantiate that they are different. (Lu et al. 2018)
Freshwater distribution: China (Lu et al. 2018)