Beimforde et al. (2020) propose the new class Sareomycetes to accommodate species of the genus Sarea Fr. These are well known for to their development on the resin of conifers. To date this genus had been placed with some uncertainty in the order Trapeliales, in the class Lecanoromycetes (Lumbsch & Huhndorf, 2010; Jaklitsch et al. 2016). Due to molecular analyses based on different combinations of seven genetic markers the authors of the study were able to show that the genus did not belong to the Lecanoromycetes, though without succeeding in accommodating it in a well-defined order. As a result, they propose to integrate it into its own family, Sareaceae, order Sareales and thus class Sareomycetes.

▶ Ekanayaka et al. (2019) proposed the new family Solenopeziaceae to accommodate certain genera previously placed in the Lachnaceae, echoing earlier hypothesises (Han et al., 2014; Baral, in Jaklitsch et al. 2016), but despite a weak statistical support in their phylogeny incorporated other genera. In the opinion of several Leotiomycetes experts, the paper of Ekanayaka et al. (2019) is debatable, but this is another topic. Their choice to form a paraphyletic family had been tried to be "corrected" by Johnston & Baschien (2020) through molecular analyses with several genes, correlated with the morphological data of the species concerned. Thus the family Tricladiaceae was proposed to accommodate the genera Cudoniella Sacc., Geniculospora Marvanová & Sv. Nilsson, Graddonia Dennis, Halenospora E.B.G. Jones, Mycofalcella Marvanová, Om-Kalth. & J. Webster, Spirosphaera Beverw. and Tricladium Ingold. While many of these genera are known only through asexual morphs, they all have in common being associated with wetlands or even aquatic habitats. Therefore, the family Solenopeziaceae whose genus-type is Solenopezia Sacc. is reduced to this genus as well as the genera Trichopeziza Fuckel, Trichopezizella Dennis ex Raitv. and Lasiobelonium Ellis & Everh., a result which is more consistent with the morphological data and lifestyle of these discomycetes.

▶ Kosonen et al. (2020) published results of their work on the families Hyaloscyphaceae and Arachnopezizaceae. A multigene analysis combined with morphological data provides us with the following insights: 1) the genus Eupezizella Höhn. is rehabilitated to accommodate ancient species of Hyaloscypha whose hairs have robust exudates, such as H. aureliella (Nyl.) Huhtinen or H. britannica Huhtinen; 2) The genus Mimicoscypha is created to accommodate a group of species including Hyaloscypha paludosa Dennis nom. illeg., H. paludosa Velen., and Phialina lacrimiformis Hosoya; 3) The genus Resinoscypha is created to accommodate two ancient Arachnopeziza, A. monoseptata (R. Galán & Raitv.) Huhtinen and A. variepilosa (R. Galán & Raitv.) Huhtinen, characterised by the resinaceous matter fixed at the top and at the septa of hairs. We also learn that the genus Arachnoscypha Boud. is excluded from the Arachnopezizaceae.

▶ Marin-Felix et al. (2020) proposed a revision of the family Lasiosphaeriaceae which is considered paraphyletic (i.e. including genera with no common ancestor). This work mainly concerns coprophilous taxa and thus tackle a reclassification work in genera such as Podospora Ces., Schizothecium Corda, Triangularia Boedijn, etc. characterised in particular by ascospores with one or more appendages, at times with a gelatinous sheath. 35 new taxa including three new families have been published. The presence of several determination keys should be emphasized.

▶ Fournier et al. (2020) proposed the third and final part of their series devoted to the Xylaria of the French Lesser Antilles. The last part was devoted to species with a slender stroma, a total of 35 taxa are presented, including four new species and one new variety. This series allows to discover the diversity of the genera in this part of the Overseas. Our colleagues have done a tremendous work and have proven that descriptive taxonomy is feasable when you have the necessary resources to do so.

▶ The Pezizaceae were recently featured with an article published in our journal. Van Vooren (2020) proposed an update of the phylogeny initiated by Hansen et al. (2005). Based on previous works that had demonstrated that the genus Peziza Fr. was paraphyletic and thanks to new sequences from several types, Van Vooren (2020) proposed to name some of the lineages supported by molecular analyses as long as it was possible to link them to morphological traits and ecological data or their lifestyle. As large morphological differences between species existed it had become difficult to maintain the unity of the genus Peziza on the only character of the amyloid reaction of the asci — this character itself showing quite a heterogeneous picture. Although this led to changes, the new classification appears to be more "natural".Ancient genus names have been reinstated such as Geoscypha (Cooke) Lambotte, Daleomyces Setch., Galactinia (Cooke) Boud. or Phaeopezia (Vido) Vido, while several new genera have been proposed for "orphan" clades: Elaiopezia, Legaliana, Paragalactinia, Phylloscypha and Ionopezia. A section of the genus Peziza, Purpureodiscus, was also elevated to the rank of genus. Note that a key of the epigeous genera of Pezizaceae was put online on our site at the end of last year (https://doi.org/10.25664/key-0009). Here are some of the new names that result from these changes — the selection is far from complete:

▶ Please also note a publication by Knapp et al. (2020) concerning a new hypogeous genus, Babosia, and a new species in the hypogeous genus Stouffera, both collected in Hungary and belonging to the lineage /Marcelleina-Ionopezia. Another publication by Aman et al. (2020) presents a new "truffle" collected in Pakistan, Ahmadea dalanensis gen. and sp. nov. which ends up in this lineage. These discoveries reinforce the idea that this whole group with Ionopezia, Hydnobolites, Delastria, and Marcelleina forms a lineage of mycorrhizal species.

▶ Miller et al. (2020) published an article dedicated to the Gyromitra gigas-"complex" with the aim of assessing the genetic connections between taxa in this group through sampling from many European, North American, and Asian countries. No taxonomic novelties but clarifications are provided. The major outcome is, that despite an almost identical morphology, G. ticiniana Littini — a European species — and G. korfii (Raitv.) Harmaja — a species known from the eastern United States and Canada — are genetically different. Note that this article launches a series of papers on the genus Gyromitra that will be published in the coming months.

▶ The paper by Haridas et al. (2020) stands out: They publish the results of genome sequencing of 101 species and their comparison. In addition to the genetic analysis which enabled to reclassify 25 species, a machine learning algorithm (a technique used in artificial intelligence) to determine the traits between saprophyte species and parasites, with the aim of predicting the lifestyle of other Dothideomycetes to be discovered is used in this study. It is conceivable that this approach is still quite expensive and difficult to generalise, but it should arouse researcher's interest. It could possibly help preventing the occurrence or spread of fungal diseases as it might be that the trophism of these organisms could be assessed more thoroughly. One of the taxonomic novelties is the newly created family Rhizodiscinaceae with a type genus, Rhizodiscina Hafellner, including R. lignyota (Fr.) Hafellner, a small fungus well-known to mycologists interested in xylophilous ascomycetes.

▶ Hongsanan et al. (2020a, 2020b) have proposed two heavyweights of the same range as the one cited for the Sordariomycetes, with their batch of novelties and reclassifications. The hybrid format between a systematic catalogue and a catalogue of descriptions is quite a controversial one. It generates a volume that is difficult to digest (855 pages when combining the two of them). Of course the subject is vast, but how should reviewers take a critical look at such a work? Inmidst this huge pile of paper we noted for example the new order Catinellales, with only one family, the Catinellaceae, with the well-known Catinella olivacea (Batsch) Boud. as a type.