<i>Rhacophyllus</i> and <i>Zerovaemyces</i> —teleomorphs or anamorphs?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Redhead, S. A., Seifert, K. A., Vilgalys, R. & Moncalvo, J.‐M.: Rhacophyllus and Zerovaemyces —teleomorphs or anamorphs? – Taxon 49: 789–798. – ISSN 0040‐0262. The originally monotypic genus Rhacophyllus was conceived for an agaric‐like fungus that bore sheets of miniature sclerotium‐like bodies (lysomeres) in place of lamellae. Subsequently it was demonstrated that a “normal” Coprinus‐like teleomorph exists as an alternative state (morph). Following this discovery, most authors have treated Rhacophyllus as an anamorph. Ontogenetic studies indicate that the Rhacophyllus state is a variation on basidiome production. Rhacophyllus apparently was rediscovered and redescribed as a new genus Zerovaemyces , for which a new family, Zerovaemycetaceae , and a new order, Loculomycetes , were also described, all as teleomorphs. Nomenclatural application of these names are analysed, and it is concluded that Rhacophyllus (and Zerovaemyces, Zerovaemycetaceae ) are best considered to be nomina anamorphosium. These decisions affect the naming of other taxa newly resolved molecularly. An analogous second case of modified basidiomes involves the anamorph Decapitatus gen. nov., described here for the well‐known gemmiferous state of Mycena citricolor, Decapitatus flavidus comb. nov. (= Stilbum flavidum ).
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".