Wood-inhabiting Basidiomycetes in the Caucasus Region : Systematics and Biogeography

The Caucasus region is a hotspot of biodiversity and is one of the few areas in the Northern Hemisphere which harbor Pleistocene glacial refugia. The region encompasses Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, the southernmost European Russia, NE Turkey, and northern Iran. The study on fungal composition of the Caucasus region and its connection and possible contribution to the present mycota of Europe has largely escaped empirical scrutiny. Using taxonomic surveys, phylogenetic reconstruction methods, haplotype analysis, and similarity tests, this study has aimed to, 1) summarize the knowledge on the occurrence of corticioids and polypores in the Caucasus region, 2) resolve the phylogenetic relationships of selected, resupinate wood-inhabiting basidiomycetes for which the Caucasus region is currently the mere, or one of the noteworthy areas of distribution, and, 3) assess the similarity of Caucasian corticioid fungi to those of Europe and important areas in the Northern Hemisphere, and to examine the significance of the Caucasus region as a glacial refugium for these fungi. This study provides the first catalogue of corticioids and polypores (635 species) occurring in the Caucasus region. The phylogeny and systematics of the Caucasian resupinate taxa in focus has been resolved and the usefulness of some morphological characters has been re-evaluated. In this context, four new genera and two new species were described and five new combinations were proposed, two of which were supplemented with modern descriptions. The species composition of corticioids in the Caucasus region is found to be distinctly more similar to Europe and North America than to East Asia and India. The highest molecular diversity and within population pairwise distance for Peniophorella praetermissa has been detected in the Caucasus and East Asia, with the isolates of the latter area being highly divergent from the European ones. This, and the assignment of root haplotype to the Caucasian isolates in a haplotype network for Phlebia tuberucalta and P. livida, call attention to the role of the Caucasus region in shaping the current mycota of Europe.

The Proto-Lucianic Problem in 1 Samuel

The Lucianic text of the Septuagint of the Historical Books witnessed primarily by the manuscript group L (19, 82, 93, 108, and 127) consists of at least two strata: the recensional elements, which date back to about 300 C.E., and the substratum under these recensional elements, the proto-Lucianic text. Some distinctive readings in L seem to be supported by witnesses that antedate the supposed time of the recension. These witnesses include the biblical quotations of Josephus, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian, and the Old Latin translation of the Septuagint. It has also been posited that some Lucianic readings might go back to Hebrew readings that are not found in the Masoretic text but appear in the Qumran biblical texts. This phenomenon constitutes the proto-Lucianic problem. In chapter 1 the proto-Lucianic problem and its research history are introduced. Josephus references to 1 Samuel are analyzed in chapter 2. His agreements with L are few and are mostly only apparent or, at best, coincidental. In chapters 3 6 the quotations by four early Church Fathers are analyzed. Hippolytus Septuagint text is extremely hard to establish since his quotations from 1 Samuel have only been preserved in Armenian and Georgian translations. Most of the suggested agreements between Hippolytus and L are only apparent or coincidental. Irenaeus is the most trustworthy textual witness of the four early Church Fathers. His quotations from 1 Samuel agree with L several times against codex Vaticanus (B) and all or most of the other witnesses in preserving the original text. Tertullian and Cyprian agree with L in attesting some Hebraizing approximations that do not seem to be of Hexaplaric origin. The question is more likely of early Hebraizing readings of the same tradition as the kaige recension. In chapter 7 it is noted that Origen, although a pre-Lucianic Father, does not qualify as a proto-Lucianic witness. General observations about the Old Latin witnesses as well as an analysis of the manuscript La115 are given in chapter 8. In chapter 9 the theory of the proto-Lucianic recension is discussed. In order to demonstrate the existence of the proto-Lucianic recension one should find instances of indisputable agreement between the Qumran biblical manuscripts and L in readings that are secondary in Greek. No such case can be found in the Qumran material in 1 Samuel. In the text-historical conclusions (chapter 10) it is noted that of all the suggested proto-Lucianic agreements in 1 Samuel (about 75 plus 70 in La115) more than half are only apparent or, at best, coincidental. Of the indisputable agreements, however, 26 are agreements in the original reading. In about 20 instances the agreement is in a secondary reading. These agreements are early variants; mostly minor changes that happen all the time in the course of transmission. Four of the agreements, however, are in a pre-Hexaplaric Hebraizing approximation that has found its way independently into the pre-Lucianic witnesses and the Lucianic recension. The study aims at demonstrating the value of the Lucianic text as a textual witness: under the recensional layer(s) there is an ancient text that preserves very old, even original readings which have not been preserved in B and most of the other witnesses. The study also confirms the value of the early Church Fathers as textual witnesses.