Phylogenetic relationships and morphological evolution in <i>Lentinus</i> , <i>Polyporellus</i> and <i>Neofavolus</i> , emphasizing southeastern Asian taxa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The genus Lentinus (Polyporaceae, Basidiomycota) is widely documented from tropical and temperate forests and is taxonomically controversial. Here we studied the relationships between Lentinus subg. Lentinus sensu Pegler (i.e. sections Lentinus, Tigrini, Dicholamellatae, Rigidi, Lentodiellum and Pleuroti and polypores that share similar morphological characters). We generated sequences of internal transcribed spacers (ITS) and partial 28S regions of nuc rDNA and genes encoding the largest subunit of RNA polymerase II (RPB1), focusing on Lentinus subg. Lentinus sensu Pegler and the Neofavolus group, combined these data with sequences from GenBank (including RPB2 gene sequences) and performed phylogenetic analyses with maximum likelihood and Bayesian methods. We also evaluated the transition in hymenophore morphology between Lentinus, Neofavolus and related polypores with ancestral state reconstruction. Single-gene phylogenies and phylogenies combining ITS and 28S with RPB1 and RPB2 genes all support existence of a Lentinus/Polyporellus clade and a separate Neofavolus clade. Polyporellus (represented by P. arcularius, P. ciliatus, P. brumalis) forms a clade with species representing Lentinus subg. Lentinus sensu Pegler (1983), excluding L. suavissimus. Lentinus tigrinus appears as the sister group of Polyporellus in the four-gene phylogeny, but this placement was weakly supported. All three multigene analyses and the single-gene analysis using ITS strongly supported Polyporus tricholoma as the sister group of the Lentinus/Polyporellus clade; only the 28S rRNA phylogeny failed to support this placement. Under parsimony the ancestral hymenophoral configuration for the Lentinus/Polyporellus clade is estimated to be circular pores, with independent transitions to angular pores and lamellae. The ancestral state for the Neofavolus clade is estimated to be angular pores, with a single transition to lamellae in L. suavissimus. We propose that Lentinus suavissimus (section Pleuroti) should be reclassified as Neofavolus suavissimus comb. nov.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".