Scolecosporiella Petr., Annls mycol. 19(1/2): 30 (1921)

Saprobic or pathogenic on various host plants. Sexual state: reported as Ophiosphaerella and Phaeosphaeria. Asexual state: Conidiomata stromatic, pycnidial, amphigenous, scattered to gregarious, immersed to subepidermal, uniloculate, glabrous, depressed-globose to globose or ovoid, pale brown to brown, ostiole central, circular, non-papillate, with dark tendrils of conidia extruding through ostiole. Conidiomata walls thin, composed of thin-walled, subhyaline to pale brown cells, arranged in textura angularis. Conidiophores reduced to conidiogenous cells. Conidiogenous cells holoblastic, annellidic, discrete, ampulliform, globose or irregular, hyaline, smooth-walled. Conidia phragmosporous, fusiform, with acute apex and a truncate base, subhyaline to pale brown, multi-septate, constricted at the septa, thick and smooth-walled, apical cell attenuated into a short, beak-like, appendage (from Nag Raj 1989).

Type species: Scolecosporiella typhae (Oudem.) Petr., Annls mycol. 19(1/2): 31 (1921).

            ≡ Hendersonia typhae Oudem., Ned. kruidk. Archf, 2 sér. 1: 255 (1873)

Phylogenetic study: None

Notes: Scolecosporiella was introduced by Petrak (1921) with S. typhae (Oudemans) Petr. as the type species. The genus was treated by Sutton (1968, 1980) and Sutton and Alcorn (1974) with five species being accommodated. Nag Raj (1989) re-examined the type species of Scolecosporiella, S. typhae and described the morphological characters in detail. Nag Raj (1989) distinguished Urohendersoniella mastigospora Petr. from Scolecosporiella typhae and reinstated the genus Urohendersoniella as this monospecific genus had been synonymized as Scolecosporiella mastigospora (Petr.) B. Sutton in Sutton (1980). Additionally, a new genus Orphanocoela was established to accommodate non-congeneric species of Scolecosporiella (Nag Raj 1989). Six species are listed in Index Fungorum (2014).

Scolecosporiella has been reported as the asexual state of Ophiosphaerella herpotricha (Farr et al. 1989; Camâra et al. 2000, Zhang et al. 2012). However, there are no phylogenic evidence to confirm the connection between the sexual and asexual state, thus the generic connection is still questionable.