Talk:Ramularia

Proposed merge of Ramularia menthicola into Ramularia

Unclear and somewhat contradictory sources about whether or not R. menthicola is a synonym of R. lamii, which does not have a standalone article. Either should be renamed if sources can be found or merged into Ramularia article. Kazamzam (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kazamzam. I added some info and sources to the R. menthicola page to get it off the "no-citations" list. From what I can see from a cursory search, R. menthicola is treated as an independent species from R. lamii, and both have been used in current literature. What are the sources that make you think otherwise? Esculenta (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Esculenta - may I say that you are escu-llent at finding sources on fungus (I'll see myself out).

This paper out of Australia in 2005 was suggested that there was a naming discrepancy between R. lamii and a var. of R. lamii which it proposed be renamed as R. brunellae. I see that MycoBank recognizes it as a valid species, but those references are the originals from the 19th century. Kazamzam (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the 2005 paper doesn't give any reason for synonymy, so I did a Scholar search for "Ramularia menthicola lamii", and found this article, which says (translated from Persian–thanks ChatGPT!):

In summary, on January 22, 1969, Vinoburgen and colleagues first introduced this species in Iran under the name "Sacc menthicola." According to Brown's monograph in 1998, the correct name for this array is "lamii. R," and based on the morphological differences found in conidia and conidiophores, two varieties have been described in this species. Thus, in the type variety, conidiophores and conidia are taller and wider, while in the minor variety, they are shorter and narrower. However, there is still some overlap in the dimensions of conidiophores and conidia between the two varieties. The characteristics of the examined specimens correspond to the description of "lamii. R" in Braun's monograph in 1998, and Mentha piperita is considered a new host for this species in Iran.

The monograph referred to is: "Braun, U. 1998. A monograph of Cercosporella, Ramularia and allied genera (Phytopathogenic Hyphomycetes), Vol. 2. IHW-Verlag, Eching.", ~~to which I don't have access~~. So they might in fact be synonyms (although I doubt this has been tested with molecular methods), but the fact that both names are still in use in recent publications suggests that recent authors are either not aware of the proposed synonymy, or disagree (or there's been some other pub more recent that I don't know about). I'll add a note to the Ramularia menthicola article mentioning Braun's proposed synonymy, but since the species is accepted as valid and current by Index/Species Fungorum, I think that's about all we can do until someone with more expertise comes along with a more definitive answer. Esculenta (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

p.s., I just found the monograph here, and R. menthicola is indeed proposed as a synonym of R. lamii. Still, considering its currently "accepted" status, I still think the best course is to leave a note at the species page for now and let someone else more qualified figure out the details later. Esculenta (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added! Esculenta (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]