Three new species of <i>Ophiostoma</i> and notes on <i>Cornuvesica falcata</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sampling of beetles, beetle galleries, and stained tree tissues by ourselves and others to obtain isolates of ophiostomatoid fungal species yielded three Ceratocystiopsis-like entities. Using partial rDNA sequences, these were previously identified as being different from both each other and all other described species of Ceratocystiopsis and Ophiostoma. As Ceratocystiopsis Upadhyay et Kendrick has been reduced to synonymy with Ophiostoma Syd. et P. Syd., and sufficient dried material is now available, these are described herein as Ophiostoma carpenteri sp. nov., Ophiostoma rollhansenianum sp. nov., and Ophiostoma manitobense sp. nov. We found O. carpenteri to be closely related to Ophiostoma retusum (R.W. Davidson et T.E. Hinds) Hausner et al., and that both species may actually be fungal symbionts and could represent a discrete genus. Although morphologically O. rollhansenianum appears similar to Ophiostoma minutum Siemaszko, a clearly variable species, and O. manitobense to Ophiostoma minus (Hedgc.) Syd. et P. Syd., earlier rDNA data indicate that O. rollhansenianum and O. manitobense are actually more closely related to Ophiostoma coliferum (Marmolejo et Butin) Hausner et al., and Ophiostoma ranaculosum (J.R. Bridges et T.J. Perry) Hausner et al. We also comment on some morphological features that have previously been overlooked or misreported in Cornuvesica falcata (E.F. Wright et Cain) C.D. Viljoen et al., such as the ascospores actually being hyaline and the presence of two distinct Chalara anamorphs.Key words: Ophiostoma, molecular and morphological criteria, Ceratocystiopsis, Cornuvesica.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".