Talk:Ascomycota

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Fungi Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alee23ncsu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page should say how many species of ascomycota there are. --Savant13 14:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

766 106.211.47.194 (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

766 106.211.47.194 (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

766 106.211.47.194 (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you'd gotten the information from, but there are numerous glaring errors in your entry of Ascomycetes.

Included are most of the fungi that combine with algae and sometimes cyanobacteria to form lichens.

The statement, while correct, doesn't give the whole picture. There have been evidences to show that some lichens consisted of basidiomycetous fungi, instead of ascomycetous fungi, with the photosynthetic symbionts.

Like most fungi the Ascomycota principally digest living or dead biomass.

That is obvious. All life forms digest only either living or dead biomass. Maybe it's supposed to just be dead biomass? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.173.255 (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of fungi that lack morphological evidence of sexual reproduction are placed here or in the Deuteromycota.

Question, if there isn't any morphological evidence of sexual reproduction, how do we know that the fungi is indeed an Ascomycete? Isn't one of the defining feature of an Ascomycete, the presence of an ascocarp and ascus? Even mycologist painstakingly induce fruiting structures of the brewer's yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) before finally placing them under ascomycetes.

I think the assessment might also have more meat, if you delve slightly more into the cellular level, by mentioning the presence of woronin bodies in ascomycetous hyphae.

Better known examples of sac fungi are yeasts, morels, truffles, and Penicillium.

Yeast doesn't refer to a particular genus of a fungi, but a type of growth form. Furthermore, there are a number of yeast that are not ascomycetous, but basidiomycetous. While we commonly refer yeast as Brewer's yeast (which is indeed an ascomycete), it doesn't make sense to clump the whole as one type of taxonomic group.

Penicillium spp. is (and still is) used for the deuteromycetes instead of ascomycetes. While certain ascomycetous fungi such as Eurotium sp. have been traced to have the asexual penicillium conidia, it doesn't necessarily place the group Penicillium is an ascomycete. In fact, mycologists have shown that penicillium conidia could be produced by more than one ascomycete species. And with more than 300 species of Penicillium, it's only normal for that to occur. However, could we be sure that all 300 species of Penicillium have a sexual stage, and produce ascocarp? Yes, there are evidences to substantiate that Penicillium sp. as well as Aspergillus sp. are ascomycetes. However convention still tend to place them still in deuteromycetes, for there are simply too many Penicillium and Aspergillus sp. out there (about 300 species each, excluding biotechnological strains) to be satisfactorily placed to individual ascomycete species. Hence, the current consensus is to still stick to the deuteromycete nomenclature, and use the form genus as a descriptor for the asexual stage of a certain ascomycetous species.

The majority of plant-pathogenic fungi belong to this group, or the Deuteromycota. This statement sounds suspiciously inaccurate, for there are numerous basidiomycetous fungi which are also pathogenic as well.

Not sure where he/she got it from, but it looks like a lot of what was just questioned could have come from the Tree of Life project. –dto 18:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the following text, which sounds to me like nonsense ('ascopore', 'dispersing asci', ...). Could anyone provide evidence for any link with reality?

1. ^c However, as noted MIT researcher Mak-Luk Sing discovered, several fungi groups--he calls them Indiascomycetes--contain a ninth ascopore. This ninth ascopore results in an elongated ascocarp, which is much better at dispersing asci than a standard ascocarp. However, he notes that mutations are more prevalent due to inperfect mitosis, and the ninth ascospore often is rendered "sterile" by those mutations.

Strobilomyces 21:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Strobilomyces commendable work has brought this article up to Featured Quality. I think everyone should spend some time checking it for style (particularly because it is a translation) and then we should nominate it. Debivort 20:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am just translating this article from the German one (it was featured in the German Wikipedia - which is generally better for fungi). It is an enormous article, and I still haven't finished. I don't know why it is so anomalously big, when most of the fungus articles are quite short and poor. For instance Basidiomycota is probably more interesting, but is quite short, also in the German Wiki. Perhaps some of this material should really be moved to other articles. Strobilomyces 16:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of good information in this article, but the article has weak spots and is poorly organized - it looks thrown together from too many diferent voices. It really needs one or two people to go over it and give it a solid edit. This was going to be a featured article?! It needs some work before it gets to that point.

BTW, editors interested in this page might also be intersted in the WikiProject on Fungi. Peter G Werner 09:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.umu.se/myconet/M7.html has moved to http://www.fieldmuseum.org/myconet/

I will try to edit this more completely over the next few days, to be followed by Basidiomycota and other linked pages. Both terms phylum and division are recognized in the Botanical Code, hence my dual heading in paragraph one. Several major phylogenetic revisions of the fungi have either just been published or are in press and that serve to help stabilize and standardize these higher level taxonomic classifications. Heliocybe 17:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a lot of interesting information but a lot of it repeats itelf. Therefore, I am trying to go through it to meld it together. In doing so I find bits of misinformation and some gaps. It is taking time to bring it up to a common standard.

Re Antarctica - ther are a lot more there than lichens. Re Zygomycota - now phylum being abandoned - I am not sure the coenocytic nature of the hyphae itself prevents colonization of arid environments or the reverse. I'd like to see some data.

Some of the information should be covered elsewhere, such as under ascus, ascoma, ascospore, croziers, lichens, anamorphs, etc. The entire section on Deuteromycota needs to be reconsidered perhaps because Basidiomycota were also included. And so it goes. Heliocybe 23:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we look at the basidiomycota we see a much better diagram showing the reationships for the smaller scale to larger scale reporoduction. Can we not have similar here?

that diagram is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Basidium_schematic.svg

It is amazing that this is such a high importance article yet no-one has fixed this basic thing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.73.93 (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ascomycota. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312153703/http://www.herbarium.usu.edu/fungi/FunFacts/Caterpillar.htm to http://www.herbarium.usu.edu/fungi/FunFacts/Caterpillar.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made two edits to this page, please review and provide feedback if needed.

i) The Rhodophyta are red algae, not blue green algae, so I changed this link. Also, the blue green algae are now recognized as cyanobacteria and don't go through meiosis.

ii) I replaced the link to the nonexistent page 'vegetative incompatibility' with a link to the subsection 'Allorecognition phenomena' on the Allorecognition page where vegetative incompatibility is discussed.

Siegele (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that there's a section called "Asexual reproduction in ascomycetes" that's at the beginning of the page and is separate from the already existing subsection "Asexual reproduction" within the section "Reproduction". Why is that? It should be fixed. Snoteleks (talk) 08:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]