Erysiphe simulans U. Braun & S. Takam.

Erysiphe simulans (E. S. Salmon) U. Braun & S. Takam., Schlechtendalia 4: 23, 2000 Figs 5, 6 ≡ Uncinula simulans E. S. Salmon, Ann. Mycol. 6: 2, 1908. ≡ Uncinuliella simulans (E. S. Salmon) R. Y. Zheng & G. Q. Chen, Acta Microbiol. Sin. 19 (3): 286, 1979. = Uncinuliella simulans var. rosae-rubi R. Y. Zheng & G. Q. Chen, Acta Microbiol. Sin. 19 (3): 288, 1979. ≡ Erysiphe simulans var. rosae-rubi (R. Y. Zheng & G. Q. Chen) U. Braun & S. Takam., Schlechtendalia 4: 23, 2000. = Uncinuliella simulans var. tandae U. Braun, Mycotaxon 22 (1): 92, 1985. ≡ Erysiphe simulans var. tandae (U. Braun) U. Braun & S. Takam., Schlechtendalia 4: 24, 2000. Type. Lectotype (designated by Braun 1987): Japan • Morioka, on Rosa multiflora, 21 Oct. 1906, Sawada (TNS-F-214613). Reference sequences (designated by Bradshaw et al. 2023): AB 015926 (ITS), AB 022395 (28 S) [in Takamatsu et al. (1999) and Mori et al. (2000)]. Specimens examined. • A total of 13 specimens were examined, including HMJAU -PM 92698 to HMJAU -PM 92708, and two specimens from the Herbarium Mycologicum Academiae Sinicae, HMAS 11418 and HMAS 13631. Detailed specimen information is presented in Suppl. material 1. Morphological description. Braun and Cook (2012: 586). Host range and distribution. on Rosa (multiflora, odorata, rubus), Rosaceae; Asia (China, Japan, Korea). Notes. Bradshaw et al. (2023) found that the sequences of E. simulans var. rosae-rubi and E. simulans var. tandae grouped together with high bootstrap values. The authors reported that the morphological differences were only gradual or had overlapping quantitative features and, as such, concluded that varieties under E. simulans should be discarded. The morphology of a reference specimen of E. simulans from Japan (HMAS 13631) and the holotype of E. simulans var. rosae-rubi from China (HMAS 11418) were re-examined in this study (Figs 5, 6). We confirmed that the two are highly similar in all characteristics. The differences in the number of appendages described by Zheng and Chen (1979) are also indistinct and overlap with each other. Although we failed to amplify sequences from those two specimens, other sequences of E. simulans were obtained from eleven newly collected specimens. The present phylogenetic analysis showed that there are minimal genetic differences within this species. Therefore, it is reasonable and justified to discard these varieties of E. simulans.