IRMNG taxon details
basis of record
Mycobank (2025 version). , available online at http://www.mycobank.org/ [details]
additional source
May, T. W. (2017). Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi: 20. <em>Taxon.</em> 66(2): 483-495., available online at https://doi.org/10.12705/662.15 note: proposal to replace with the junior name Dothioraceae rejected, refer notes. [details]
taxonomy source
Mycobank (2025 version). , available online at http://www.mycobank.org/ [details]
name verified source
Mycobank (2025 version). , available online at http://www.mycobank.org/ [details]
current name source
Mycobank (2025 version). , available online at http://www.mycobank.org/ [details]
extant flag source
Mycobank (2025 version). , available online at http://www.mycobank.org/ [details]
original description
(of Aureobasidiaceae K.M. Thambugala & K.D. Hyde in Ariyawansa et al., 2014) Ariyawansa, H. A.; Tanaka, K.; Thambugala, K. M.; Phookamsak, R.; Tian, Q.; Camporesi, E.; Hongsanan, S.; Monkai, J.; Wanasinghe, D. N.; Mapook, A.; Chukeatirote, E.; Kang, J.-C.; Xu, J.-C.; McKenzie, E. H. C.; Jones, E. B. G.; Hyde, K. D. (2014). A molecular phylogenetic reappraisal of the Didymosphaeriaceae (= Montagnulaceae). <em>Fungal Diversity.</em> 68(1): 69-104., available online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-014-0305-6 [details]
Unreviewed
Taxonomic remark Family revived since 2009; at that date, the type genus Saccothecium was listed in Dothioraceae (Index Fungorum data). Doweld, 2012 proposed to conserve Dothioraceae against Saccotheciaceae, however the former name is now considered a synonym of Dothideaceae, which is a separate family from Saccotheciaceae (alternative proposed name: Aureobasidiaceae, unaccepted). [details]
| |