 Phylum：Oomycota >> Class： Oomycetes >> Order： Saprolegniales |
||||
 BCRC Number： |
NO BCRC Number! | |||
| Scientific Name： |
Saprolegnia diclina | |||
| Author： |
Saprolegnia diclina Humphrey, Trans. Amer. Phil. Aoc (N.S), 17:109, pl. 17, figs, 50-53, 1893. |
|||
| Description： |
Hyphae not stout; 20-32 μ in diameter. Gemae abundant; clavate, pyriform or irregular; terminal; single or frequently catenulate; functioning as oogonia or zoosporangia. Zoosporangia abundant; cylindrical, clavate, straight, renewed by internal proliferation. Zoospore discharge saprolegnoid, Oogonia usually sparse, often fromed only after prolonged period of time; terminal or lateral; clavate, pyriform or irregular; 40-80 × 60-200 μ. Oogonial wall unpitted orvery rarely pitted; thin; smooth, Oospheres maturing, Oospores subcentric or centric. Antheridial branches diclinous, often wrapping about the oogonium. Antheridial cell tubular orclavate, simple; laterally appressed. Antheridial cell not persistent. | |||
| Specimens： |
Collected from diseased fish in Taipei at Nov. 27, 1974 |
|||
| Habitat： |
Soil and water | |||
| Distribution： |
Thailand ; Japan ; Hong Kong ; Taiwan |
|||
| References： |
Dick MW. 1969, 1974; Seymouur RL. 1970. |
|||
| Provided： |
T. S. Chiou and H. S. Chang |
|||
| Note： |
Seymour (1970) stated that Saprolegnia diclina, S. parasitica and S. australis could beseparated from one to another by oospore type and oogonial pitting. He pointed out that theoospores of S. australis and S. parasitica were mostly subcentric, whereas S. diclina werecentric. rarely subcentric. Many isolate of Saprolegnia we collected and examined are S.parasitica and S. diclina (Chiou et al, 1975). They possessed subcentric type, however centricoospore types were frequently present too. Thus they could be distinguished only by oogonialpitting, and we suggest S. australis is synonym of S. diclina.Here describes an isolate of S. diclina in possessing very rate ptis. We examined hundredsoogonia for the presence of pits and found only one with spares pits. From this isolate wethought oogonial pitting is not a reliable character for distinguishing S. diclina from S. parasitica.The present study provides further evidence showing the close relationship among S. diclina,S. parasitica and S. australis. | |||