Skip to main content
Log in

The morphology of the imperfect states of powdery mildews (Erysiphaceae)

  • Published:
The Botanical Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In contrast to popular belief, a rich variety of morphological characteristics exists in the imperfect states of powdery mildews. Because it has been generally assumed that species cannot be distinguished by their appressoria, haustoria, conidiophores, conidia, fibrosin bodies, and conidial germ tubes, their morphology has received little attention and several older publications have even been forgotten. As with the perfect states, few species can be recognized by one characteristic of the imperfect state alone but many species can be identified when a combination of several characteristics is used. Important characteristics are the location of the mycelium, the production of conidia singly or in chains, the presence or absence of conspicuous fibrosin bodies, the appressoria, the size and shape of the conidia, and the position and type of their germ tubes. Many species are associated with particular families or genera of plants and therefore these are included in a key to identify 131 species of powdery mildew. This key shows how much and especially how little is known about many species. It is hoped that this review will stimulate study of the morphology of the imperfect states of numerous species. Consideration of both the perfect and the imperfect state should result in a more natural classification of several genera, for exampleUncinula andErysiphe which at present include both species which produce conidia in long chains and those which produce conidia singly.

It appears that there are two lines of development of the imperfect states. One is characterized by lobed appressoria and conidiophores which produce conidia singly. The other is characterized by more or less rounded, unlobed appressoria and conidiophores which produce conidia in chains. A better knowledge of all the different imperfect states may provide more information regarding the evolution of powdery mildews.

Résumé

Contraire à l’opinion commune, les stades imparfaits des Erysiphacées montrent une riche variété de caractéristiques morphologiques. Parcequ’en général on a supposé que les espèces ne peuvent pas être distinguées par leurs appressoria, haustoria, conidiophores, conidies, corpuscules de fibrosine et tubes germinatifs, leur morphologie a été étudié à peine et quelques publications anciennes ont même été oubliées. De même que les stades parfaits, on peut reconnaître peu d’espèces selon une seule caractéristique du stade imparfait mais beaucoup d’espèces en utilisant une combinaison de plusieurs caractéristiques. La localisation du mycélium, la production des conidies seules ou en chaînes, la présence ou absence de corpuscules de fibrosine bien visibles, les types d’appressoria, la grandeur et forme des conidies et la position et le type de leurs tubes germinatifs sont caractéristiques importantes. Plusieurs espèces sont associées avec des familles ou genres particuliers de plantes et donc les dernières sont présentées dans le clef d’identification de 131 espèces d’Erysiphacées. Ce clef montre au même temps combien est connu et combien est inconnu du stade imparfait.

On espère que cette analyse stimulera la recherche de la morphologie des stades imparfaits de nombreuses espèces. Une considération des deux stades, parfaits et imparfaits, aurait pour resultat une classification plus naturelle. Par exemple les genresErysiphe etUncinula incluient espèces au conidiophores courts et aussi espèces au conidiophores longs. Il parait que les stades conidiens suivent deux lignes de développement. L’un des lignes est caractérisé par d’appressoria lobés et conidiophores produisant des conidies seuls; l’autre est caractérisé par d’appressoria plus ou moins arrondis, non lobés, et de conidiophores produisant des conidies en chaînes.

Plus d’information sur les stades imparfaits contribuerait à la connaissance de l’évolution des Erysiphacées.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  1. Anderson, F. W. 1889. A preliminary list of the Erysiphaceae of Montana. J. Mycol.5: 188–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arnaud, G. 1921. Etude sur les champignons parasites. Ann. Epiphyt.7: 1–116.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bary, A. de. 1870.Eurotium, Erysiphe, Cicinnobolus nebst Bemerkungen über die Geschlechtsorgane der Ascomyceten. Abh. Senckenb. Naturforsch. Ges.7: 361–455.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Berkeley, J. M. 1853. Fungi. Pages 172–210in J. D. Hooker (ed.). The botany of the Antarctic voyage of discovery ships H.M. Erebus and Terror in the years 1839–1843. Lovell Reeve, London. 338 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Blumer, S. 1922a. Beiträge zur Spezialisation derErysiphe horridula Lév. Zentralb. Bakteriol. Parasitenkd. Abt. 255: 480–506.

    Google Scholar 

  6. —. 1922b. Die Formen derErysiphe cichoracearum DC. Zentralbl. Bakteriol. Parasitenkd. Abt. 257: 45–60.

    Google Scholar 

  7. —. 1928. Ueber den Mehltau der Hortensie. Z. Pflanzenkr. Pflanzenpathol. Pflanzenschutz38: 78–83.

    Google Scholar 

  8. —. 1933. Die Erysiphaceen Mitteleuropas mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Schweiz. Beitr. Kryptogamenflora Schweiz7: 1–483.

    Google Scholar 

  9. —. 1967. Echte Mehltaupilze (Erysiphaceae). Fischer, Jena. 436 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  10. — andE. Müller. 1964. Ueber zwei Mehltauarten auf Baumwolle aus Peru. Phytopathol. Z.50: 379–385.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Boesewinkel, H. J. 1976. Powdery mildew ofBegonia in New Zealand. Trans. Br. My col. Soc.67: 152–155.

    Google Scholar 

  12. —. 1977. Identification of Erysiphaceae by conidial characteristics. Rev. Mycol.41: 493–507.

    Google Scholar 

  13. —. 1979a. Observations on the host range of powdery mildews. Phytopathol. Z.94: 241–248.

    Google Scholar 

  14. -. 1979b. Erysiphaceae of New Zealand. Sydowia32. (In press.)

  15. Bouwens, H. 1924. Untersuchungen über Erysipheen. Meded. Phytopathol. Lab. Willie Commelin Scholten, Baarn (Holland)8: 3–28.

    Google Scholar 

  16. —. 1927. Weitere Untersuchungen über Erysipheen. Meded. Phytopathol. Lab. Willie Commelin Scholten, Baarn (Holland)10: 3–31.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Brundza, K. 1933. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Erysiphaceen Litauens. Jahrb. Landwirtsch. Akad. Litauen1933: 107–197. (ex Blumer, 1967.)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Burrill, T. J. 1892. Pages 1–30in J. B. Ellis and B. M. Everhart (eds.). The North American Pyrenomycetes. Ellis and Everhart, New Jersey. 793 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Carter, C. N. 1915. A powdery mildew on citrus. Phytopathology5: 193–196.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Castagne, L. 1845. Catalogue des plantes qui croissent naturellement aux environs de Marseille. Aix. 263 pp.

  21. Cirulli, M. 1975. The powdery mildew of parsley caused byLeveillula lanuginosa (Fuck.) Golovin. Phytopathol. Mediterr.14: 94–99.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Clare, B. G. 1964. Erysiphaceae of south-eastern Queensland. Pap. Dep. Bot. Univ. Queensl.4: 111–144.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Clerk, G. C. andE. N. Ayesu-Offei. 1967. Conidia and conidial germination inLeveillula taurica (Lév.) Arn. Ann. Bot. N.S.31: 749–754.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cooke, M. C. 1871. Handbook of British fungi. London, Macmillan, 981 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Crépin, C. H. 1922. UnOïdium de la betterave. Bull. Soc. Path. Vég. Fr.9: 118–119.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cruchet, P. 1962. Présence en Suisse d’une Erysiphacée sur les chênesMicrosphaera hypophylla Nevodovskij (Microsphaera silvatica Vlasov). Ber. Schweiz. Bot. Ges.72: 123–131.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Demski, J. W. andD. V. Phillips. 1974. Reactions of soybean cultivars to powdery mildew. Plant Dis. Rep.58: 723–726.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Doidge, E. M. 1948. South African ascomycetes in the national herbarium. Bothalia4: 837–881.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Drandarevski, Ch. A. 1969. Untersuchungen über den echten RübenmehltauErysiphe betae (Vanha) Weltzien. I. Morphologie und Taxonomie des Pilzes. Phytopathol. Z.65: 54–68.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ferraris, T. 1912. Flora italica cryptogama I. Hyphales. 846 pp.

  31. Fischer, R. 1957. Abhängigkeit der Konidiengrösse des Goldregenmehltaues vom Alter der befallenen Blätter. Sydowia Ser.II, BeiheftI: 203–209.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Foex, E. M. 1912. Les conidiophores des Erysiphacées. Rev. Gén. Bot.28: 200–206.

    Google Scholar 

  33. —. 1913a. Evolution du conidiophore deSphaerotheca humuli. Rev. Gén. Bot.29: 251–253.

    Google Scholar 

  34. —. 1913b. Recherches surOidiopsis taurica. Bull. Soc. Mycol. Fr.29: 577–588.

    Google Scholar 

  35. —. 1924a. Note surErysiphe graminis DC. Bull. Soc. Mycol. Fr.40: 166–177.

    Google Scholar 

  36. —. 1924b. Notes sur les Erysiphées. Bull. Soc. Mycol. Fr.40: 236–243.

    Google Scholar 

  37. —. 1925. Notes sur quelques Erysiphacées. Bull. Soc. Mycol. Fr.41: 417–438.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Fresenius, G. 1852. Beiträge zur Mykologie. Heft 2, pp. 39–80. Brönner, Frankfurt a.M. 111 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Fries, E. 1829. Systema mycologicum3: 234–247. Greifswald, 260 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Gardner, M. W., C. E. Yarwood, andR. D. Raabe. 1970. Unreported powdery mildews IV. Plant Dis. Rep.54: 399–402.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Gaümann, E. 1926. Vergleichende Morphologie der Pilze. Fischer, Jena. 626 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Golovin, P. N. 1960. Powdery mildews parasitizing cultivated and useful wild plants. Acad. Sci. USSR, Moscow-Leningrad. 266 pp. (In Russian.)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Griffon, M. E. andA. Maublanc. 1912. LesMicrosphaera des chênes. Bull. Soc. Mycol. Fr.28: 88–103.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Hammarlund, C. 1925. Zur Genetik, Biologie und Physiologie einiger Erysiphaceen. Hereditas6: 1–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. —. 1945. Beiträge zur Revision einiger imperfecten Mehltau Arten-Erysiphepolyphaga nov. sp. (Vorläufige Mitteilung). Bot. Not. 1945, 101–108.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Harkness, H. W. 1884. New species of Californian fungi. Bull. Calif. Acad. Sci.1: 29–49.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Hashioka, Y. 1937. Relation of temperature and humidity toSphaerotheca fuliginea (Schlecht.) Poll. with special reference to germination, viability and infection. Trans. Nat. Hist. Soc. Formosa27: 129–145 (ex Hirata, 1942.)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hennings, P. 1901. Fungi Japonici I.In Engl. Bot. Jahrb.28: 271–272.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Hirata, K. 1942. On the shape of the germ tubes of Erysiphaceae I. Bull. Chiba Coll. Hort.5: 34–49.

    Google Scholar 

  50. —. 1955. On the shape of the germ tubes of Erysiphaceae II. Bull. Fac. Agric. Niigata Univ.7: 24–36.

    Google Scholar 

  51. —. 1963. Notes on the host range and geographic distribution of the powdery mildew fungi. Trans. Mycol. Soc. Japan9: 73–88.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Homma, Y. 1937. Erysiphaceae of Japan. J. Fac. Agric. Hokkaido (Imp.) Univ.38: 183–461.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Jaczewski, A. A. 1927. Pocket key for the determination of fungi: Part II. Powdery mildews. State Institute of Experimental Agriculture, Leningrad. 626 pp. (In Russian.)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Junell, L. 1967. Erysiphaceae of Sweden. Symb. Bot. Ups.19: 1–117.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Kapoor, J. N. 1967. Commonwealth Mycological Institute descriptions of pathogenic fungi and bacteria. Sheets 151–160.

  56. Kimbrough, J. W. 1963. The development ofPleochaeta polychaeta (Erysiphaceae). Mycologia55: 608–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. — andR. P. Korf. 1963. Nomenclatural notes V.Uncinula polychaeta and the generaPleochaeta andUncinulopsis. Mycologia55: 619–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Klika, J. 1922. Einige Bemerkungen über die Biologie des Mehltaus. Ann. Mycol.20: 74–80.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Léveillé, J. H. 1851. Organisation et disposition méthodique des espèces qui composent le genreErysiphe. Ann. Sci. Nat.15: 105–179 + 317.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Lindley, J. 1851. Gard. Chron. 1851, p. 227. (ex Léveillé 1851.)

    Google Scholar 

  61. Marasas, W. F. O. 1966. New species of ascomycetes and a new genus of Sphaeropsidaceae from Transvaal. Bothalia9: 203–215.

    Google Scholar 

  62. — andI. H. Schumann. 1966. Two species of Erysiphaceae from Pretoria. Bothalia9: 245–249.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Massee, G. 1910. Diseases of cultivated plants and trees. Duckworth and Co., London. 602 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Maurizio, A. M. 1927. Zur Biologie und Systematik der Pomaceen bewohnenden Podosphaeren. Zentralbl. Bakteriol. Parasitenkd. Abt. II,72: 129–148.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Mohl, H. von. 1853. Die Traubenkrankheit. Bot. Ztg.11: 585–595.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Mukerji, K. G. 1968. Commonwealth Mycological Institute descriptions of pathogenic fungi and bacteria. Sheets 182, 183, 186–190.

  67. Murray, B. J. 1927. Four fungi on the endemic species ofRubus in New Zealand. Trans. N.Z. Inst.57: 218–225.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Neger, F. W. 1901. Beiträge zur Biologie der Erysipheen I. Flora88: 333–370.

    Google Scholar 

  69. —. 1902. Beiträge zur Biologie der Erysipheen II. Flora90: 221–272.

    Google Scholar 

  70. —. 1905. Erysiphaceae. Kryptogamenflora der Mark Brandenburg7: 96–135.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Nour, M. A. 1957.Leveulula clavata sp. nov. Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc.40: 477–480.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Noviello, C. 1961. A first report of powdery mildew on fennel in Italy. Phytopathol. Z.42: 167–174.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Palla, E. 1899. Ueber die GattungPhyllactinia. Ber. Dtsch. Bot. Ges.17: 64–72.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Palti, J., Y. Pinkas, andM. Chorin. 1974. Powdery mildew of mango. Plant Dis. Rep.58: 45–49.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Patwardhan, P. G. 1965.Phyllactinia yarwoodii sp. nov. from India. Sydowia19: 135–137.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Petersen, G. A.1938. Perithecial material ofErysiphe andMicrosphaera onTrifolium pratense. Mycologia30: 299–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Pirozynski, K. A. 1965.Ovulariopsis state ofPleochaeta. Mycologia57: 826–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Prillieux, E. 1897. Maladies des plantes agricoles II. Firmin-Didot, Paris. 592 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Purneil, T. J. and A. Sivanesan. 1970. Commonwealth Mycological Institute descriptions of pathogenic fungi and bacteria. Sheets 251 and 254.

  80. Puttemans, A. 1911. Nouvelles maladies de plantes cultivées. Bull. Soc. R. Bot. Belg.48: 235–247.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Rabenhorst, L. 1853.Oidium chrysanthemi n. sp. Hedwigia1: 19–21.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Raymond, J. 1927. Le blanc du chêne. Ann. Epiphyt.13: 94–129.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Roger, L. 1953. Phytopathologie des pays chauds 2. Lechevalier, Paris. 1130 pp.

  84. Salmon, E. S. 1900. A monograph of the Erysiphaceae. Mem. Torrey Bot. Club9: 1–292.

    Google Scholar 

  85. —. 1905a. Cultural experiments with anOidium onEuonymus japonicus Linn. f. Ann. Mycol.3: 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  86. —. 1905b. On the variation shown by the conidial stage ofPhyllactinia corylea (Pers.) Karst. Ann. Mycol.3: 493–505.

    Google Scholar 

  87. —. 1906. OnOidiopsis taurica Lév., an endophytic member of the Erysiphaceae. Ann. Bot.20: 187–200.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Savulescu, T. 1929. Considérations systématiques sur les Erysiphacées. Ann. Sci. Acad. de Haute Etudes Agr. Bucarest1: 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Sawada, K. 1914. The Erysiphaceae studied from the conidial stage. Spec. Bull. Agric. Exp. Stn. Formosa9: 1–102. (In Japanese.)

    Google Scholar 

  90. —. 1927. On the systematic investigation ofErysiphe in Formosa. Bull. Dep. Agric. Gov. Res. Inst. Formosa24: 1–55. (In Japanese.)

    Google Scholar 

  91. —. 1959. Descriptive catalogue of Taiwan (Formosan) Fungi, Part XI. College of Agriculture, National Taiwan University Taipei, China. Special publication No. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Schlechtendahl, D. F. L. von. 1819. Anhang zu der Abhandlung des Herrn Dr. Wallroth etc. Verh. Ges. Naturf. Fr. Berlin1: 46–51.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Schlösser, E. 1972. Cleistothecia ofErysiphe cichoracearum DC. ex Mérat and conidia ofSphaerotheca fuliginea Schi. ex Fr. concomitantly on cucumber. Meded. Fac. Landb. Wetensch. Gent37: 553–558.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Schmidt, E. 1913. Ueber die formen derErysiphe polygoni. Mykol. Zentralbl.3: 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Searle, G. O. 1920. Some observations onErysiphe polygoni DC. Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc.6: 274–293.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Sivanesan, A. 1970. Commonwealth Mycological Institute descriptions of pathogenic fungi and bacteria. Sheet 252.

  97. Smith, G. 1900. The haustoria of the Erysiphaceae. Bot. Gaz.29: 153–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Speer, E. O. 1975a. Untersuchungen zur Morphologie und Systematic der Erysiphaceen I. Die GattungBlumeria Golovin und ihre TypusartErysiphe graminis DC. Sydowia27: 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  99. —. 1975b. Untersuchungen zur Morphologie und Systematik der Erysiphaceen II. Der Eichenmehltau.Microsphaera alphitoides Griff. et Maubl. Sydowia27: 112–126.

    Google Scholar 

  100. — andE. B. Oehrens. 1975.Microsphaera myzodendri spec. nov., ein neuer Mehltau aus Chile. Sydowia27: 127–130.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Spegazzini, C. 1926. Contribución al conocimiento de la flora micologica de las sierras de Córdoba. Boln Acad. Nac. Cienc. Córdoba29: 113–190.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Staveley, J. R. andE. W. Hanson. 1966. Pathogenicity and morphology ofErysiphe polygoni. Phytopathology56: 309–318.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Subramanian, C. V. 1971. Hyphomycetes. Jain, New Dehli. 930 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Sydow, H. 1924. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Pilzflora Neu-Seelands I. Ann. Mycol.22: 293–317.

    Google Scholar 

  105. —. 1935. Beschreibungen neuer südafrikanischer Pilze VI. Ann. Mycol.33: 230–237.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Tai, F. L. 1946. Further studies on the Erysiphaceae of China. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club73: 108–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. —. andC. T. Wei. 1932. Notes on Chinese fungi II. Sinensia3: 93–130.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Thirumalachar, M. J. andB. B. Mundkur. 1951. Revisions of and additions to Indian fungi III. Mycol. Pap.40: 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Tracey, S. M. andB. T. Galloway. 1888. Notes on western Erysiphaceae and Peronosporeae. J. Mycol.4: 33–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Tramier, R. 1963. Etude préliminaire duLeveillula taurica (Lév.) Arn. dans le midi de la France. Ann. Epiphyt.14: 355–369.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Tulasne, L. R. andC. C. Tulasne. 1861. Selecta Fungorum Carpologia1: 194–216.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Viégas, A. P. 1944. Alguns fungos do Brazil II. Ascomicetos. Bragantia4: 5–392.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Viennot-Bourgin, G. 1951.Oidium begoniae Puttemans maladie nouvelle pour la France. Ann. Epiphyt. Sér. 3,2: 381–387.

    Google Scholar 

  114. —. 1956. Mildious, oidiums, caries, charbons, rouilles des plantes de France. Encycl. Mycol.27: 1–89.

    Google Scholar 

  115. —. 1966. De quelques Erysiphacées nouvelles ou peu connues. Bull. Soc. Mycol. Fr.82: 190–206.

    Google Scholar 

  116. —. 1968. Note sur des Erysiphacées. Bull. Soc. Mycol. Fr.84: 117–118.

    Google Scholar 

  117. —. 1969. UnErysiphe du haricot en serre. Ann. Phytopathol.1: 473–489.

    Google Scholar 

  118. —. 1971. Erysiphacées nouvelles ou peu connues en France. Ann. Phytopathol.3: 337–352.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Weltzien, H. C. 1963.Erysiphe betae (Vanha) comb. nov., the powdery mildew of beets. Phytopathol. Z.47: 123–128.

    Google Scholar 

  120. — andC. E. Yarwood. 1963. The conidial stage ofUncinula necator. Mycologia55: 342–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Weltzien-Stenzel, M. 1959. Studies on the germination biology of conidia ofUncinula necator (Schwein.) Burr. Höfchenbr. Bayer Pflanzenschutz-Nachr.12: 29–52.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Winter, G. 1887. Die Pilze Deutschlands, Oesterreichs, und der Schweiz. Pages 22–42in Rabenhorsts Kryptogamenflora von Deutschland, Oesterreich, und der Schweiz, VolI, Abt. 2.

  123. Woodward, R. C. 1927. Studies onPodosphaera leucotricha (Ell. & Ev.) Salm. I. The mode of perennation. Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc.12: 173–204.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Yarwood, C. E. 1936. Host range and physiologic specialization of red clover powdery mildew,Erysiphe polygoni. J. Agric. Res.52: 659–665.

    Google Scholar 

  125. —. 1937. Unreported powdery mildews. Plant Dis. Rep.21: 180–182.

    Google Scholar 

  126. —. 1957. Powdery mildews. Bot. Rev.23: 235–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. —. 1973. Pyrenomycetes: Erysiphales. Pages 71–86in G. C. Ainsworth, F. K. Sparrow and A. S. Sussman (eds.). The fungi, Academic, New York. 621 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  128. —. andN. W. Gardner. 1970. Leaf surface and leaf hairs affect length of conidiophores of Erysiphaceae. Mycologia62: 707–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Yen, J. M. 1964. Etude sur les champignons parasites du sud-est Asiatique II. Un nouvelOidium récolté à Singapour. Rev. Mycol.29: 296–304.

    Google Scholar 

  130. —. 1966a. Etude sur les champignons parasites du sud-est Asiatique V. Note sur quelques espèces d’Oidium de Malaisie. Rev. Mycol.31: 281–310.

    Google Scholar 

  131. —. 1966b. Etude sur les champignons du sud-est Asiatique VI. Un nouvelOidium récolté à Taiwan (Formose) surCarica papaya: Oidium caricae-papayae Yen n. sp. Rev. Mycol.31: 311–316.

    Google Scholar 

  132. —. 1967. Etude sur les champignons parasites du sud-est Asiatique VIII. Quelques espèces d’Oidium de Formose. Cah. Pacif.11: 75–115.

    Google Scholar 

  133. — andC. C. Wang. 1973. Etude sur les champignons parasites du sud-est Asiatique 22: lesOidium de Formose (2). Rev. Mycol.37: 125–153.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Zaracovitis, C. 1964. Factors in testing fungicides against powdery mildews. The germination of the conidiain vitro. Ann. Inst. Phytopathol. Benaki N.S.6: 73–106.

    Google Scholar 

  135. —. 1965. Attempts to identify powdery mildew fungi by conidial characters. Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc.48: 553–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Zopf W. 1887. Ueber einen neuen Inhaltskörper in pflanzlichen Zellen. Ber. Dtsch. Bot. Ges.5: 275–281.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boesewinkel, H.J. The morphology of the imperfect states of powdery mildews (Erysiphaceae). Bot. Rev 46, 167–224 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02860869

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02860869

Keywords

Navigation