Interfertility between North American and European strains of <i>Phlebiopsis gigantea</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Thirteen homokaryotic strains of Phlebiopsis gigantea from Canada, six strains from the US and 10 strains from Europe were paired in all possible combinations in order to determine the degree of interfertility between them. The diagnosis of interfertility was based on the production of heterokaryotic fruit bodies in the pairings. Among the resulting 406 pairings, 253 (62%) fruited. Within the strains originating from Canada, USA and Europe, 64, 80 and 64% of the pairings fruited, respectively. The fruiting frequency in pairings between the Canadian and US strains was 65%, between the Canadian and European strains 55%, and between the US and European strains 67%. True hybridization between the European and North American P. gigantea was shown by analysing the single‐spore progeny using DNA fingerprinting. In spite of the relatively low interfertility in pairings within and between continents, no clear indication of the existence of intersterility groups was found. The low interfertility is probably due to the ageing of the pure cultures and to deficient fruiting ability of certain heterokaryons on agar medium. The results strongly suggest that although the North American and European strains of P. gigantea show some differentiation they can be regarded as belonging to the same biological species.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".