Melanopsaceae A.J.L. Phillips, Slippers, Boissin & Crous, Stud. Mycol. 76(1): 43 (2013).
MycoBank number: MB 805796; Index Fungorum number: IF 805796; Facesoffungi number: FoF 07630, 111 species.
On woody hosts. Sexual morph: Ascostromata pseudothecial, multiloculate, locules at various levels in ascoma, immersed, partially erumpent at maturity, black, subglobose, thick-walled. Ascomatal wall thick-walled, comprised of cells of textura angularis. Asci 8-spored, bitunicate, fissitunicate, pedicellate, clavate. Hamathecium comprising hyaline, thin-walled, hypha-like, septate, not constricted at septa, cellular pseudoparaphyses. Ascospores overlapping, ellipsoid to rhomboid, hyaline, aseptate, thin-walled, with a persistent mucus sheath. Asexual morph: Coelomycetous. Conidiomata often formed in the same stroma as ascostromata. Paraphyses septate, branched or not, filiform, hyaline, arising from between the conidiogenous cells. Conidiophores 1–2-septate, branched or not, hyaline, smooth, or reduced to conidiogenous cells. Conidiogenous cells subcylindrical, branched or unbranched, discrete, hyaline, formed from the inner wall of the conidioma, proliferating percurrently at apex, or with periclinal thickening. Conidia fusoid, hyaline, aseptate, with a persistent mucus sheath, rarely with minute marginal frill (adapted from Slippers et al. 2013; Phillips et al. 2019)
Type: Melanops Nitschke ex Fuckel.
Notes: Slippers et al. (2013) established Melanopsaceae in Botryosphaeriales to accommodate Melanops. Melanops has a mucilage sheath around the ascospores and in that respect is identical to Phyllostictaceae. However, Phyllostictaceae has uniloculate ascostromata, while those of Melanops are multiloculate (Slippers et al. 2013). Phylogenetic analyses supported the placement of Melanops as a distinct family in Botryosphaeriales (Wikee et al. 2013b; Slippers et al. 2013; Phillips et al. 2019). Divergence time estimates for this family also support its familial status (Slippers et al. 2013; Phillips et al. 2019). However, Jiang et al. (2018b) suggested that the divergence time estimation in the previous studies might not be accurate estimates due to the fact that sequence data from only two taxa were used in the phylogenetic placement, an opinion also voiced by Phillips et al. (2019).