Give a brief account of the various systems that have been suggested to classify fungi.
Q. Give a brief account of the various systems that have been suggested to classify fungi.
Ans. The first attempt to classify and describe the fungi was made by Persoon (1801). He published the “Synopsis Methodica Fungorum” which is regarded as the starting point of the nomenclature of the Rusts, Smuts and Gasteromycetes. Persoon arranged the species into Classes, Orders and Families. Between 1821 and 1829, Elias Fries completed the “Systema Mycologicum” and gave a full account of all the fungi known by that time.
In 1937, Leveille recognized the Ascomycetes and asidiomycetes as two main groups. De Bary (1866) in the “The Comparative Morphology and Biology of the Fungi” presented many new observations such as the discovery of heteroecism and recognition of Phycomycetes as a distinct class.
There are various systems of classifications, some disagree on basic principles, whereas many of them differ in detail. Eichler (1886) gave a more conservative system of classification and divided the primitive Division Thallophyta into two Classes (see table below): Algae and Fungi. The fungi comprised to Schizomycetes, Eumycetes and Lichens.

This system was discarded as it provided an incorrect impression that the three groups represent a direct line of evolution. character of
Goebel (1887) divided the Fungi, according to the vegetative organs, into three classes as follows:
(1) Fission Fungi (Bacteria)
(2) Sprouting Fungi (Yeasts)
(3) Spawn Fungi (includes all fungi with hyphal growth). In 1890 Zopf gave an account of the lower phycomycetes in his “Die Pilze”. Patonillard (1900) classified higher basidiomycetes on hymenial characters.
Burnett (1968) gave a very broad outline classification of Fungi without explaining the basis of separation of different taxonomic categories.
Class – Phycomycetes
Subclass – Plasmodiophoromycetes
Subclass – Hyphochytridiomycetes
Subclass – Chytridiomycetes
Subclass – Oomycetes
Subclass – Zygomycetes
Subclass – Trichomycetes
Class – Ascomycetes
Series – Hemiascomycetidae
Series – Euascomycetidae
Plectomycetes
Pyrenomycetes
Discomycetes
Laboulbeniomycetes
Series – Loculoascomycetidae
Class – Deuteromycetes
Class – Basidiomycetes
Series – Heterobasidiomycetidae
Series – Homobasidiomycetidae
Hymenomycetes
Gasteromycetes
Again Talbot (1969) subdivided Fungi and Fungus-like organisms as follows:
Fungi with a plasmodial thallus Division Myxomycota (Slime Molds) Non-colonial slime molds
Sporangiate fructification present, not endoparasites
Class Myxomycetes
Sporangiate fructification lacking, endoparasites
Class Plasmodiophoromycetes
Colonial slime molds
Net slime molds, mostly parasitic on marine plants
Order Labyrinthulales
Order Acrasiales
Cellular slime molds, saprobes
Fungi with a non-plasmodial thallus Division Eumycota (True Fungi)
Thallus unicellular uninucleate, poorly to well-developed aseptate mycelium with a tendency to develop septa; asexual pores motile or nonmotile sporangiospores; sexual reproduction results in the formation of oospores or zygospores; absence of fruit bodies
Sporangia with zoospores, predominantly oogamous
Subdivision Mastigomycotina
Sporangia with aplanospores, entirely zygogamous
Subdivision Zygomycotina
Members of the Subdivisions: Mastigomycotina and Zygomycotina, together formerly known as ‘Phycomycetes’, include what are usually thought
to be the most primitive types of Eumycota, even though the simplest show much diversity of form and complexity of life cycle.
Thallus with septate mycelium; asexual spores other than sporangiospores; sexual reproduction results in the formation of asciand ascospores or basidia and basidiospores usually in fruit bodies.
Presence of asci and ascospores
Subdivision Ascomycotina
Presence of basidia and basidiospores
Subdivision Basidiomycotina
Thallus structure and asexual spores are similar to Ascomycotina and Basidiomycotina; sexual reproduction lacking
Subdivision Deuteromycotina
Webster (1970) adopted a scheme of classification of Fungi and Funguslike organisms proposed by Ainsworth (1966) which is briefly outlined below:
Division Myxomycota
Class Acrasiomycetes
Class Hydromyxomycetes
Class Myxomycetes
Class Plasmodiophoromycetes
Division Eumycota
Subdivision Mastigomycotina
Class Chytridiomycetes
Class Hyphochytridiomycetes
Class Oomycetes
Subdivision Zygomycotina.
Class Zygomycetes
Class Trichomycetes
Subdivision Ascomycotina. (Ascomycetes)
Class Hemiascomycetes
Class Plectomycetes
Class Pyrenomycetes
Class Discomycetes
Class Laboulbeniomycetes
Class Loculoascomycetes
Subdivision Basidiomycotina (Basidiomycetes)
Class Hemibasidiomycetes
Class Hymenomycetes
Class Gasteromycetes
Subdivision Deuteromycotina (Fungi Imperfecti)
Class Coelomycetes
Class Hyphomycetes
Class Agonomycetes
Elizabeth-Moore-Landecker (1972) classified Fungi separately for lower fungi and higher fungi.
Classification of lower fungi based on flagellation was adopted from Sparrow (1958).
Uniflagellates
Class Chytridiomycetes
Class Hyphochytridiomycetes
Biflagellates
Class Plasmodiophoromycetes
Class Oomycetes.
Non-flagellates
Class Zygomycetes
Classification of the Ascomycetes was based on gross morphology, anatomy, and life history of the individual organisms.
Class Ascomycetes
Subclass Hemiascomycetidae
Subclass Euascomycetidae
Series Bitunicatae
Series Unitunicatae
Subseries Loculomycetes
Subseries Plectomycetes
Subseries Pyrenomycetes
Subseries Discomycetes
Subclass Laboulbeniomycetidae
Classification of the Basidiomycetes was based on the morphology of the basidium.
Class Basidiomycetes
Subclass Heterobasidiomycetidae
Subclass Homobasidiomycetidae
Series Hymenomycetes
Series Gasteromycetes
The Fungi Imperfecti: The members of the Fungi Imperfecti were combined in a single group because they apparently lack a sexual cycle and there was no convenient place in the remainder of the fungus classification system, which is based principally on the mode of sexual reproduction.
Whether the Myxomycotina are closely related to the Eumycota (True Fungi) is yet to be decided. There is a possibility that they are closely related to Protozoa.
Again the somatic phase of the Plasmodiophoromycetes is so different from that of the true fungi with which they are often classified based on the nature of flagellate cells.
Follow on Facebook page – Click Here
Google News join in – Click Here
Read More Asia News – Click Here
Read More Sports News – Click Here
Read More Crypto News – Click Here