See Manaaki Whenua datastore https://doi.org/10.7931/tdhv-aj12, and 'Mollisia sensu lato diversity in New Zealand'

Phialocephala s.l. is still currently polyphyletic, both by including distantly related species and by occurrence in numerous closely related clades intermixed with species named in other genera, some of which have nomenclatural priority (e.g. Cystodendron, Mollisia, Trimmatostroma). Based on ITS sequences Grünig et al. (2002) showed that Ph. fusca, Ph. humicola (= Ph. xalapensis) and Ph. virens are outside the main Phialocephala clade. ITS BLAST queries suggest the placement of Ph. fusca and Ph. humicola in the Chaetosphaeriaceae. Morphological and phylogenetic evidence also reveal that Ph. trigonospora is not congeneric with Ph. dimorphospora and most likely belongs to Verticicladiella (Grünig et al. 2009). Acephala, a genus with two described species belonging to the PAC, is congeneric with Phialocephala and differentiated only by the lack of observed sporulation in culture (Grünig and Sieber 2005), a taxonomic choice enabled by some interpretations of dual nomenclature but now unacceptable after recent changes to the Code. Although the core clade of Phialocephala s.s. clearly defined as the Phialocephala dimorphospora clade, the presence of Mollisia cinerea-like teleomorphs in this clade cast at least some doubt on its nomenclatural priority over Mollisia until this species and the genus are epitypified (an ongoing project; A. Gminder pers comm). The apparent phylogenetic affinity of the PAC and allied taxa to Vibrissea in most phylogenies is also a major taxonomic issue that requires resolution. is further evident that Phialocephala s.s. remains to be comprehensively circumscribed, awaiting reassignment of phylogenetically closely related and unrelated Phialocephala species, and the formal transfer of species currently congeneric with Phialocephala s.s. (e.g. in Acephala and Mollisia), to stable and monophyletic genus concepts. If Ph. dimorphospora is indeed congeneric with M. cinerea, then nomenclatural decisions will have to consider the interests of users of these names and the independent taxonomic histories of these genera. A principle of the Code is priority of publication. Mollisia, described by Karsten in 1871, clearly has priority over Phialocephala (1961). Unfortunately Mollisia is not yet robustly circumscribed and the prevailing concept is broad, polyphyletic and paraphyletic (Crous et al. 2003, Grünig et al. 2009). A definitive nomenclatural conclusion requires at least a preliminary phylogenetic investigation of Mollisia. Based on Index Fungorum, 603 names have been applied to Mollisia. The number of accepted Mollisia species after excluding synonymized taxa and subspecific identifiers is 231, excluding species of other genera that are probably congeneric or that already appear to overlap phylogenetically, such as Belonopsis, Haglundia, Nimbomollisia, Pyrenopeziza and Tapesia. Only seven Mollisia species are represented in GenBank, including only one representing an ex-type strain, M. dextrinospora (better placed in Pyrenopeziza, B. Douglas unpubl).