taxonID	type	format	identifier	references	title	description	created	creator	contributor	publisher	audience	source	license	rightsHolder	datasetID
5A99A10F39985CB9B2B9ABEA7E6801B7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1677520	https://doi.org/10.3897/imafungus.17.191909.figure5	Figure 5. Morphology of Microdochium bambusicola (ex-type CGMCC 3.29432). a on leaf of bamboo (Poaceae sp.) b, c colonies (b-above, c-reverse) after 7 days on PDA d colony on PDA producing conidia masses e – g conidiophores with conidiogenous cells and conidia h conidiogenous cells and conidia i – j conidia. Scale bars: 10 μm (e – j).	Figure 5. Morphology of Microdochium bambusicola (ex-type CGMCC 3.29432). a on leaf of bamboo (Poaceae sp.) b, c colonies (b-above, c-reverse) after 7 days on PDA d colony on PDA producing conidia masses e – g conidiophores with conidiogenous cells and conidia h conidiogenous cells and conidia i – j conidia. Scale bars: 10 μm (e – j).	2026-06-12	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang		Zenodo	biologists	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang			
5A99A10F39985CB9B2B9ABEA7E6801B7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1677516	https://doi.org/10.3897/imafungus.17.191909.figure1	Figure 1. Phylogram of the family Microdochiaceae based on a concatenated ITS, LSU, rpb 2, and tub 2 sequence alignment, with Muscodor fengyangensis (CGMCC 2862) and Muscodor thailandicus (MFLUCC 17–2669) serving as outgroups. The Bayesian inference posterior probability (left, BIPP ≥ 0.90) and the maximum likelihood bootstrap value (right, MLBV ≥ 70 %) are shown as BIPP / MLBV above the nodes. Those marked “ * ” in the tree are represented as ex-type or ex-epitype strains. Strains isolated in this study are indicated in red. Furthermore, four single gene trees were individually evaluated for Microdochiaceae (Supplementary Information 2).	Figure 1. Phylogram of the family Microdochiaceae based on a concatenated ITS, LSU, rpb 2, and tub 2 sequence alignment, with Muscodor fengyangensis (CGMCC 2862) and Muscodor thailandicus (MFLUCC 17–2669) serving as outgroups. The Bayesian inference posterior probability (left, BIPP ≥ 0.90) and the maximum likelihood bootstrap value (right, MLBV ≥ 70 %) are shown as BIPP / MLBV above the nodes. Those marked “ * ” in the tree are represented as ex-type or ex-epitype strains. Strains isolated in this study are indicated in red. Furthermore, four single gene trees were individually evaluated for Microdochiaceae (Supplementary Information 2).	2026-06-12	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang		Zenodo	biologists	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang			
1062A663046652E592209CC59D26BE01.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1677516	https://doi.org/10.3897/imafungus.17.191909.figure1	Figure 1. Phylogram of the family Microdochiaceae based on a concatenated ITS, LSU, rpb 2, and tub 2 sequence alignment, with Muscodor fengyangensis (CGMCC 2862) and Muscodor thailandicus (MFLUCC 17–2669) serving as outgroups. The Bayesian inference posterior probability (left, BIPP ≥ 0.90) and the maximum likelihood bootstrap value (right, MLBV ≥ 70 %) are shown as BIPP / MLBV above the nodes. Those marked “ * ” in the tree are represented as ex-type or ex-epitype strains. Strains isolated in this study are indicated in red. Furthermore, four single gene trees were individually evaluated for Microdochiaceae (Supplementary Information 2).	Figure 1. Phylogram of the family Microdochiaceae based on a concatenated ITS, LSU, rpb 2, and tub 2 sequence alignment, with Muscodor fengyangensis (CGMCC 2862) and Muscodor thailandicus (MFLUCC 17–2669) serving as outgroups. The Bayesian inference posterior probability (left, BIPP ≥ 0.90) and the maximum likelihood bootstrap value (right, MLBV ≥ 70 %) are shown as BIPP / MLBV above the nodes. Those marked “ * ” in the tree are represented as ex-type or ex-epitype strains. Strains isolated in this study are indicated in red. Furthermore, four single gene trees were individually evaluated for Microdochiaceae (Supplementary Information 2).	2026-06-12	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang		Zenodo	biologists	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang			
E7CDF6F2F0D656E59F2660E6FABD19C1.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1677521	https://doi.org/10.3897/imafungus.17.191909.figure6	Figure 6. Morphology of Microdochium guangdongense (ex-type CGMCC 3.29429). a, b colonies (a-above, b-reverse) after 7 d on PDA c colony overview d – h conidiophores with conidiogenous cells and conidia i, j conidia. Scale bars: 10 μm (d – j).	Figure 6. Morphology of Microdochium guangdongense (ex-type CGMCC 3.29429). a, b colonies (a-above, b-reverse) after 7 d on PDA c colony overview d – h conidiophores with conidiogenous cells and conidia i, j conidia. Scale bars: 10 μm (d – j).	2026-06-12	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang		Zenodo	biologists	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang			
E7CDF6F2F0D656E59F2660E6FABD19C1.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1677516	https://doi.org/10.3897/imafungus.17.191909.figure1	Figure 1. Phylogram of the family Microdochiaceae based on a concatenated ITS, LSU, rpb 2, and tub 2 sequence alignment, with Muscodor fengyangensis (CGMCC 2862) and Muscodor thailandicus (MFLUCC 17–2669) serving as outgroups. The Bayesian inference posterior probability (left, BIPP ≥ 0.90) and the maximum likelihood bootstrap value (right, MLBV ≥ 70 %) are shown as BIPP / MLBV above the nodes. Those marked “ * ” in the tree are represented as ex-type or ex-epitype strains. Strains isolated in this study are indicated in red. Furthermore, four single gene trees were individually evaluated for Microdochiaceae (Supplementary Information 2).	Figure 1. Phylogram of the family Microdochiaceae based on a concatenated ITS, LSU, rpb 2, and tub 2 sequence alignment, with Muscodor fengyangensis (CGMCC 2862) and Muscodor thailandicus (MFLUCC 17–2669) serving as outgroups. The Bayesian inference posterior probability (left, BIPP ≥ 0.90) and the maximum likelihood bootstrap value (right, MLBV ≥ 70 %) are shown as BIPP / MLBV above the nodes. Those marked “ * ” in the tree are represented as ex-type or ex-epitype strains. Strains isolated in this study are indicated in red. Furthermore, four single gene trees were individually evaluated for Microdochiaceae (Supplementary Information 2).	2026-06-12	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang		Zenodo	biologists	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang			
9680BD6578B35FE794D4C9C3B2E5236A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1677522	https://doi.org/10.3897/imafungus.17.191909.figure7	Figure 7. Morphology of Microdochium guizhouensis (SAUCC 11159-1). a on leaf of Phragmites australis b, c colonies (b-above, c-reverse) after 7 d on PDA d colony on PDA producing conidia masses e, f conidiophores with conidiogenous cells and conidia g – i conidia. Scale bars: 10 μm (e – i).	Figure 7. Morphology of Microdochium guizhouensis (SAUCC 11159-1). a on leaf of Phragmites australis b, c colonies (b-above, c-reverse) after 7 d on PDA d colony on PDA producing conidia masses e, f conidiophores with conidiogenous cells and conidia g – i conidia. Scale bars: 10 μm (e – i).	2026-06-12	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang		Zenodo	biologists	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang			
9680BD6578B35FE794D4C9C3B2E5236A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1677516	https://doi.org/10.3897/imafungus.17.191909.figure1	Figure 1. Phylogram of the family Microdochiaceae based on a concatenated ITS, LSU, rpb 2, and tub 2 sequence alignment, with Muscodor fengyangensis (CGMCC 2862) and Muscodor thailandicus (MFLUCC 17–2669) serving as outgroups. The Bayesian inference posterior probability (left, BIPP ≥ 0.90) and the maximum likelihood bootstrap value (right, MLBV ≥ 70 %) are shown as BIPP / MLBV above the nodes. Those marked “ * ” in the tree are represented as ex-type or ex-epitype strains. Strains isolated in this study are indicated in red. Furthermore, four single gene trees were individually evaluated for Microdochiaceae (Supplementary Information 2).	Figure 1. Phylogram of the family Microdochiaceae based on a concatenated ITS, LSU, rpb 2, and tub 2 sequence alignment, with Muscodor fengyangensis (CGMCC 2862) and Muscodor thailandicus (MFLUCC 17–2669) serving as outgroups. The Bayesian inference posterior probability (left, BIPP ≥ 0.90) and the maximum likelihood bootstrap value (right, MLBV ≥ 70 %) are shown as BIPP / MLBV above the nodes. Those marked “ * ” in the tree are represented as ex-type or ex-epitype strains. Strains isolated in this study are indicated in red. Furthermore, four single gene trees were individually evaluated for Microdochiaceae (Supplementary Information 2).	2026-06-12	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang		Zenodo	biologists	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang			
C27A2928E2115F2B923CB258729EFD5B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1677523	https://doi.org/10.3897/imafungus.17.191909.figure8	Figure 8. Morphology of Microdochium ledongense (ex-type CGMCC 3.29650). a on leaf of bamboo (Poaceae sp.) b, c colonies (b-above, c-reverse) after 7 d on PDA d colony overview e – i conidiophores with conidiogenous cells and conidia j, k conidia. Scale bars: 10 μm (e – k).	Figure 8. Morphology of Microdochium ledongense (ex-type CGMCC 3.29650). a on leaf of bamboo (Poaceae sp.) b, c colonies (b-above, c-reverse) after 7 d on PDA d colony overview e – i conidiophores with conidiogenous cells and conidia j, k conidia. Scale bars: 10 μm (e – k).	2026-06-12	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang		Zenodo	biologists	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang			
C27A2928E2115F2B923CB258729EFD5B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1677516	https://doi.org/10.3897/imafungus.17.191909.figure1	Figure 1. Phylogram of the family Microdochiaceae based on a concatenated ITS, LSU, rpb 2, and tub 2 sequence alignment, with Muscodor fengyangensis (CGMCC 2862) and Muscodor thailandicus (MFLUCC 17–2669) serving as outgroups. The Bayesian inference posterior probability (left, BIPP ≥ 0.90) and the maximum likelihood bootstrap value (right, MLBV ≥ 70 %) are shown as BIPP / MLBV above the nodes. Those marked “ * ” in the tree are represented as ex-type or ex-epitype strains. Strains isolated in this study are indicated in red. Furthermore, four single gene trees were individually evaluated for Microdochiaceae (Supplementary Information 2).	Figure 1. Phylogram of the family Microdochiaceae based on a concatenated ITS, LSU, rpb 2, and tub 2 sequence alignment, with Muscodor fengyangensis (CGMCC 2862) and Muscodor thailandicus (MFLUCC 17–2669) serving as outgroups. The Bayesian inference posterior probability (left, BIPP ≥ 0.90) and the maximum likelihood bootstrap value (right, MLBV ≥ 70 %) are shown as BIPP / MLBV above the nodes. Those marked “ * ” in the tree are represented as ex-type or ex-epitype strains. Strains isolated in this study are indicated in red. Furthermore, four single gene trees were individually evaluated for Microdochiaceae (Supplementary Information 2).	2026-06-12	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang		Zenodo	biologists	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang			
655CD77856425B4E8355001413CD43BE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1677524	https://doi.org/10.3897/imafungus.17.191909.figure9	Figure 9. Morphology of Microdochium microstegii (ex-type CGMCC 3.29421). a on leaf of Microstegium vimineum b, c colonies (b-above, c-reverse) after 7 d on PDA d Colony on PDA producing conidia masses e, g – i conidiophores with conidiogenous cells and conidia f, j conidia. Scale bars: 10 μm (e – j).	Figure 9. Morphology of Microdochium microstegii (ex-type CGMCC 3.29421). a on leaf of Microstegium vimineum b, c colonies (b-above, c-reverse) after 7 d on PDA d Colony on PDA producing conidia masses e, g – i conidiophores with conidiogenous cells and conidia f, j conidia. Scale bars: 10 μm (e – j).	2026-06-12	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang		Zenodo	biologists	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang			
655CD77856425B4E8355001413CD43BE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1677516	https://doi.org/10.3897/imafungus.17.191909.figure1	Figure 1. Phylogram of the family Microdochiaceae based on a concatenated ITS, LSU, rpb 2, and tub 2 sequence alignment, with Muscodor fengyangensis (CGMCC 2862) and Muscodor thailandicus (MFLUCC 17–2669) serving as outgroups. The Bayesian inference posterior probability (left, BIPP ≥ 0.90) and the maximum likelihood bootstrap value (right, MLBV ≥ 70 %) are shown as BIPP / MLBV above the nodes. Those marked “ * ” in the tree are represented as ex-type or ex-epitype strains. Strains isolated in this study are indicated in red. Furthermore, four single gene trees were individually evaluated for Microdochiaceae (Supplementary Information 2).	Figure 1. Phylogram of the family Microdochiaceae based on a concatenated ITS, LSU, rpb 2, and tub 2 sequence alignment, with Muscodor fengyangensis (CGMCC 2862) and Muscodor thailandicus (MFLUCC 17–2669) serving as outgroups. The Bayesian inference posterior probability (left, BIPP ≥ 0.90) and the maximum likelihood bootstrap value (right, MLBV ≥ 70 %) are shown as BIPP / MLBV above the nodes. Those marked “ * ” in the tree are represented as ex-type or ex-epitype strains. Strains isolated in this study are indicated in red. Furthermore, four single gene trees were individually evaluated for Microdochiaceae (Supplementary Information 2).	2026-06-12	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang		Zenodo	biologists	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang			
B8A581E93E425144862F3ADC52449DB7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1677525	https://doi.org/10.3897/imafungus.17.191909.figure10	Figure 10. Morphology of Microdochium miscanthi (SAUCC 7610-2). a on leaf of Phragmites australis b, c colonies (b-above, c-reverse) after 7 d on PDA d colony on PDA producing conidia masses e conidiophores with conidiogenous cells and conidia f hyaline, conidiogenous cells and conidia g – i conidia. Scale bars: 10 μm (e – i).	Figure 10. Morphology of Microdochium miscanthi (SAUCC 7610-2). a on leaf of Phragmites australis b, c colonies (b-above, c-reverse) after 7 d on PDA d colony on PDA producing conidia masses e conidiophores with conidiogenous cells and conidia f hyaline, conidiogenous cells and conidia g – i conidia. Scale bars: 10 μm (e – i).	2026-06-12	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang		Zenodo	biologists	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang			
B8A581E93E425144862F3ADC52449DB7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1677516	https://doi.org/10.3897/imafungus.17.191909.figure1	Figure 1. Phylogram of the family Microdochiaceae based on a concatenated ITS, LSU, rpb 2, and tub 2 sequence alignment, with Muscodor fengyangensis (CGMCC 2862) and Muscodor thailandicus (MFLUCC 17–2669) serving as outgroups. The Bayesian inference posterior probability (left, BIPP ≥ 0.90) and the maximum likelihood bootstrap value (right, MLBV ≥ 70 %) are shown as BIPP / MLBV above the nodes. Those marked “ * ” in the tree are represented as ex-type or ex-epitype strains. Strains isolated in this study are indicated in red. Furthermore, four single gene trees were individually evaluated for Microdochiaceae (Supplementary Information 2).	Figure 1. Phylogram of the family Microdochiaceae based on a concatenated ITS, LSU, rpb 2, and tub 2 sequence alignment, with Muscodor fengyangensis (CGMCC 2862) and Muscodor thailandicus (MFLUCC 17–2669) serving as outgroups. The Bayesian inference posterior probability (left, BIPP ≥ 0.90) and the maximum likelihood bootstrap value (right, MLBV ≥ 70 %) are shown as BIPP / MLBV above the nodes. Those marked “ * ” in the tree are represented as ex-type or ex-epitype strains. Strains isolated in this study are indicated in red. Furthermore, four single gene trees were individually evaluated for Microdochiaceae (Supplementary Information 2).	2026-06-12	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang		Zenodo	biologists	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang			
3D6939BE104B50EDB3D4728A73237600.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1677526	https://doi.org/10.3897/imafungus.17.191909.figure11	Figure 11. Morphology of Microdochium nannuoshanense (SAUCC 13988-3). a on unknown diseased leaf b, c colonies (b-above, c-reverse) after 7 d on PDA d conidiomata formed on PDA e, f conidiophores with conidiogenous cells and conidia g – i conidia. Scale bars: 10 μm (e – i).	Figure 11. Morphology of Microdochium nannuoshanense (SAUCC 13988-3). a on unknown diseased leaf b, c colonies (b-above, c-reverse) after 7 d on PDA d conidiomata formed on PDA e, f conidiophores with conidiogenous cells and conidia g – i conidia. Scale bars: 10 μm (e – i).	2026-06-12	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang		Zenodo	biologists	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang			
3D6939BE104B50EDB3D4728A73237600.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1677516	https://doi.org/10.3897/imafungus.17.191909.figure1	Figure 1. Phylogram of the family Microdochiaceae based on a concatenated ITS, LSU, rpb 2, and tub 2 sequence alignment, with Muscodor fengyangensis (CGMCC 2862) and Muscodor thailandicus (MFLUCC 17–2669) serving as outgroups. The Bayesian inference posterior probability (left, BIPP ≥ 0.90) and the maximum likelihood bootstrap value (right, MLBV ≥ 70 %) are shown as BIPP / MLBV above the nodes. Those marked “ * ” in the tree are represented as ex-type or ex-epitype strains. Strains isolated in this study are indicated in red. Furthermore, four single gene trees were individually evaluated for Microdochiaceae (Supplementary Information 2).	Figure 1. Phylogram of the family Microdochiaceae based on a concatenated ITS, LSU, rpb 2, and tub 2 sequence alignment, with Muscodor fengyangensis (CGMCC 2862) and Muscodor thailandicus (MFLUCC 17–2669) serving as outgroups. The Bayesian inference posterior probability (left, BIPP ≥ 0.90) and the maximum likelihood bootstrap value (right, MLBV ≥ 70 %) are shown as BIPP / MLBV above the nodes. Those marked “ * ” in the tree are represented as ex-type or ex-epitype strains. Strains isolated in this study are indicated in red. Furthermore, four single gene trees were individually evaluated for Microdochiaceae (Supplementary Information 2).	2026-06-12	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang		Zenodo	biologists	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang			
D9EA6BF6FA38552299763EEEEFC4DE57.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1677527	https://doi.org/10.3897/imafungus.17.191909.figure12	Figure 12. Morphology of Microdochium nigrum (ex-type CGMCC 3.29428). a, b colonies (a-above, b-reverse) after 7 d on PDA c colony on PDA producing conidia masses d – g conidiophores with conidiogenous cells and conidia h – j conidia. Scale bars: 10 μm (d – j).	Figure 12. Morphology of Microdochium nigrum (ex-type CGMCC 3.29428). a, b colonies (a-above, b-reverse) after 7 d on PDA c colony on PDA producing conidia masses d – g conidiophores with conidiogenous cells and conidia h – j conidia. Scale bars: 10 μm (d – j).	2026-06-12	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang		Zenodo	biologists	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang			
D9EA6BF6FA38552299763EEEEFC4DE57.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1677516	https://doi.org/10.3897/imafungus.17.191909.figure1	Figure 1. Phylogram of the family Microdochiaceae based on a concatenated ITS, LSU, rpb 2, and tub 2 sequence alignment, with Muscodor fengyangensis (CGMCC 2862) and Muscodor thailandicus (MFLUCC 17–2669) serving as outgroups. The Bayesian inference posterior probability (left, BIPP ≥ 0.90) and the maximum likelihood bootstrap value (right, MLBV ≥ 70 %) are shown as BIPP / MLBV above the nodes. Those marked “ * ” in the tree are represented as ex-type or ex-epitype strains. Strains isolated in this study are indicated in red. Furthermore, four single gene trees were individually evaluated for Microdochiaceae (Supplementary Information 2).	Figure 1. Phylogram of the family Microdochiaceae based on a concatenated ITS, LSU, rpb 2, and tub 2 sequence alignment, with Muscodor fengyangensis (CGMCC 2862) and Muscodor thailandicus (MFLUCC 17–2669) serving as outgroups. The Bayesian inference posterior probability (left, BIPP ≥ 0.90) and the maximum likelihood bootstrap value (right, MLBV ≥ 70 %) are shown as BIPP / MLBV above the nodes. Those marked “ * ” in the tree are represented as ex-type or ex-epitype strains. Strains isolated in this study are indicated in red. Furthermore, four single gene trees were individually evaluated for Microdochiaceae (Supplementary Information 2).	2026-06-12	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang		Zenodo	biologists	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang			
86F23BBB97755B7FBD0D655199875BCF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1677528	https://doi.org/10.3897/imafungus.17.191909.figure13	Figure 13. Morphology of Microdochium setariae (ex-type CGMCC 3.29420). a on leaf of Setaria viridis b, c colonies (b-above, c-reverse) after 7 d on PDA d conidiomata formed on PDA e – g conidiogenous cells with conidia h, i conidia. Scale bars: 10 μm (e – i).	Figure 13. Morphology of Microdochium setariae (ex-type CGMCC 3.29420). a on leaf of Setaria viridis b, c colonies (b-above, c-reverse) after 7 d on PDA d conidiomata formed on PDA e – g conidiogenous cells with conidia h, i conidia. Scale bars: 10 μm (e – i).	2026-06-12	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang		Zenodo	biologists	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang			
86F23BBB97755B7FBD0D655199875BCF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1677516	https://doi.org/10.3897/imafungus.17.191909.figure1	Figure 1. Phylogram of the family Microdochiaceae based on a concatenated ITS, LSU, rpb 2, and tub 2 sequence alignment, with Muscodor fengyangensis (CGMCC 2862) and Muscodor thailandicus (MFLUCC 17–2669) serving as outgroups. The Bayesian inference posterior probability (left, BIPP ≥ 0.90) and the maximum likelihood bootstrap value (right, MLBV ≥ 70 %) are shown as BIPP / MLBV above the nodes. Those marked “ * ” in the tree are represented as ex-type or ex-epitype strains. Strains isolated in this study are indicated in red. Furthermore, four single gene trees were individually evaluated for Microdochiaceae (Supplementary Information 2).	Figure 1. Phylogram of the family Microdochiaceae based on a concatenated ITS, LSU, rpb 2, and tub 2 sequence alignment, with Muscodor fengyangensis (CGMCC 2862) and Muscodor thailandicus (MFLUCC 17–2669) serving as outgroups. The Bayesian inference posterior probability (left, BIPP ≥ 0.90) and the maximum likelihood bootstrap value (right, MLBV ≥ 70 %) are shown as BIPP / MLBV above the nodes. Those marked “ * ” in the tree are represented as ex-type or ex-epitype strains. Strains isolated in this study are indicated in red. Furthermore, four single gene trees were individually evaluated for Microdochiaceae (Supplementary Information 2).	2026-06-12	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang		Zenodo	biologists	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang			
121BA1990A2A5DBBBF0B3A939C805D86.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1677529	https://doi.org/10.3897/imafungus.17.191909.figure14	Figure 14. Morphology of Microdochium sinense (SAUCC 14457-1). a on leaf of Thysanolaena latifolia b, c colonies (b-above, c-reverse) after 7 d on PDA d conidiomata formed on PDA g – i conidiophores with conidiogenous cells and conidia e, f conidia. Scale bars: 10 μm (e – i).	Figure 14. Morphology of Microdochium sinense (SAUCC 14457-1). a on leaf of Thysanolaena latifolia b, c colonies (b-above, c-reverse) after 7 d on PDA d conidiomata formed on PDA g – i conidiophores with conidiogenous cells and conidia e, f conidia. Scale bars: 10 μm (e – i).	2026-06-12	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang		Zenodo	biologists	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang			
121BA1990A2A5DBBBF0B3A939C805D86.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1677516	https://doi.org/10.3897/imafungus.17.191909.figure1	Figure 1. Phylogram of the family Microdochiaceae based on a concatenated ITS, LSU, rpb 2, and tub 2 sequence alignment, with Muscodor fengyangensis (CGMCC 2862) and Muscodor thailandicus (MFLUCC 17–2669) serving as outgroups. The Bayesian inference posterior probability (left, BIPP ≥ 0.90) and the maximum likelihood bootstrap value (right, MLBV ≥ 70 %) are shown as BIPP / MLBV above the nodes. Those marked “ * ” in the tree are represented as ex-type or ex-epitype strains. Strains isolated in this study are indicated in red. Furthermore, four single gene trees were individually evaluated for Microdochiaceae (Supplementary Information 2).	Figure 1. Phylogram of the family Microdochiaceae based on a concatenated ITS, LSU, rpb 2, and tub 2 sequence alignment, with Muscodor fengyangensis (CGMCC 2862) and Muscodor thailandicus (MFLUCC 17–2669) serving as outgroups. The Bayesian inference posterior probability (left, BIPP ≥ 0.90) and the maximum likelihood bootstrap value (right, MLBV ≥ 70 %) are shown as BIPP / MLBV above the nodes. Those marked “ * ” in the tree are represented as ex-type or ex-epitype strains. Strains isolated in this study are indicated in red. Furthermore, four single gene trees were individually evaluated for Microdochiaceae (Supplementary Information 2).	2026-06-12	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang		Zenodo	biologists	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang			
B5F4F2A617665B708C62E3EDF66E1D2A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1677530	https://doi.org/10.3897/imafungus.17.191909.figure15	Figure 15. Morphology of Microdochium viridis (ex-type CGMCC 3.29434). a on leaf of Setaria viridis b, c colonies (b-above, c-reverse) after 7 d on PDA d conidiomata formed on PDA e, f conidiogenous cells with conidia g, h conidia. Scale bars: 10 μm (e – h).	Figure 15. Morphology of Microdochium viridis (ex-type CGMCC 3.29434). a on leaf of Setaria viridis b, c colonies (b-above, c-reverse) after 7 d on PDA d conidiomata formed on PDA e, f conidiogenous cells with conidia g, h conidia. Scale bars: 10 μm (e – h).	2026-06-12	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang		Zenodo	biologists	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang			
B49FE1CA38E05D969605FD82EAE4DEE8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1677531	https://doi.org/10.3897/imafungus.17.191909.figure16	Figure 16. Morphology of Microdochium vulgaris (ex-type CGMCC 3.29422). a, b colonies (a-above, b-reverse) after 7 d on PDA c, d colony on PDA producing conidia masses e – g conidiophores with conidiogenous cells and conidia h, i conidia. Scale bars: 10 μm (e – i).	Figure 16. Morphology of Microdochium vulgaris (ex-type CGMCC 3.29422). a, b colonies (a-above, b-reverse) after 7 d on PDA c, d colony on PDA producing conidia masses e – g conidiophores with conidiogenous cells and conidia h, i conidia. Scale bars: 10 μm (e – i).	2026-06-12	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang		Zenodo	biologists	Liu, Qiyun;Shang, Yuxin;Yuan, Jinyang;Zhang, Zhaoxue;Ai, Congcong;Xia, Jiwen;Zhang, Xiuguo;Li, Zhuang			
