Recommendations on generic names competing for use in Leotiomycetes (Ascomycota)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In advancing to one scientific name for fungi, this paper treats genera competing for use in the phylogenetically defined class Leotiomycetes except for genera of Erysiphales. Two groups traditionally included in the so-called "inoperculate discomycetes" have been excluded from this class and are also not included here, specifically Geoglossomycetes and Orbiliomycetes. A recommendation is made about the generic name to use in cases in which two or more generic names are synonyms or taxonomically congruent along with the rationale for the recommendation. In some cases the recommended generic name does not have priority or is based on an asexual type species, thus needs to be protected and ultimately approved according to Art. 57.2 of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants (ICN). A table is presented listing all competing generic names and their type species noting the recommended generic name. New combinations are introduced for the oldest epithet in the recommended genus including Ascocalyx berenice, Ascoconidium purpurascens, Ascocoryne albida, A. trichophora, Blumeriella filipendulae, B. ceanothi, Botrytis arachidis, B. fritillariae-pallidoflori, Calloria urticae, Calycellina aspera, Dematioscypha delicata, Dermea abietinum, D. boycei, D. stellata, Diplocarpon alpestre, D. fragariae, Godroniopsis peckii, Grovesinia moricola, Heterosphaera sublineolata, Hyphodiscus brachyconium, H. brevicollaris, H. luxurians, Leptotrochila campanulae, Monilinia polystroma, Neofabraea actinidae, N. citricarpa, N. vagabunda, Oculimacula aestiva, O. anguioides, Pezicula brunnea, P. californiae, P. cornina, P. diversispora, P. ericae, P. melanogena, P. querciphila, P. radicicola, P. rhizophila, Phialocephala piceae, Pilidium lythri, Rhabdocline laricis, Streptotinia streptothrix, Symphyosirinia parasitica, S. rosea, Unguiculariopsis caespitosa, and Vibrissea laxa.
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 | 0.025 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.075 |
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".