Notes on <i>Ceratocystis brunnea</i> and some other <i>Ophiostoma</i> species based on partial ribosomal DNA sequence analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ribosomal gene sequence data were obtained from a nonfruiting culture originally identified as Ceratocystis brunnea R.W. Davidson; this species was considered a nomen dubium by Upadhyay (1981) due to a presumptive lack of teleomorph material. The data showed that C. brunnea is a valid species that should be transferred to Ophiostoma, demonstrating that DNA data can compensate for the presumed or actual lack of morphological features lost during either long-term culturing or disintegration of holotype specimens. Use of partial large ribosomal sequence data to assess the relationship of C. brunnea to other Ophiostoma spp. showed that it is not a synonym of Ophiostoma piliferum (Fr.:Fr.) Syd. & P. Syd. as has been suggested; instead, it appears to be distantly related to Ophiostoma piceae (Münch) Syd. & P. Syd. The data obtained for the Ophiostoma piliferum strains included in this study suggest that hardwood-derived isolates may be distinct from those obtained from conifers. In addition, molecular characters support transferring Ceratocystis pseudonigra Olchow. & Reid, Ceratocystiopsis concentrica (Olchow. & Reid) Upadhyay, Ceratocystiopsis pallidobrunnea (Olchow. & Reid) Upadhyay, and Ceratocystiopsis crenulata (Olchow. & Reid) Upadhyay to Ophiostoma.Key words: rDNA, phylogenetics, Ophiostoma piliferum, Ophiostoma, Ceratocystsis.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".