On the phylogeny of members of <i>Ceratocystis</i> s.s. and <i>Ophiostoma</i> that possess different anamorphic states, with emphasis on the anamorph genus <i>Leptographium</i>, based on partial ribosomal DNA sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phylogenetic analysis of partial ribosomal DNA sequences was undertaken to assess the phylogenetic distribution of ophiostomatoid anamorphs with an emphasis on members of Leptographium and the generic limits of Ceratocystis sensu lato Ell. & Halst. Molecular data identified one group of Ophiostoma species with anamorphs assignable to Pesotum and Leptographium that appears to be monophyletic. This study also showed that, based on molecular characters, Pesotum pini (Hutchison & Reid) Okada and all Leptographium strains tested, including L. terebrantis Barras & Perry, L. lundbergii Lag. & Melin, and L. procerum (Kendr.) Wingf., could be placed among Ophiostoma species. With regard to the anamorphs of Ophiostoma, we determined that the separation of Leptographium from Pesotum, although convenient, is artificial. The partial ribosomal DNA sequences also confirm that Europhium should be considered a synonym of Ophiostoma. The phylogenetic position of species of Ceratocystis sensu lato with Chalara-like, Knoxdaviesia, and Gabarnaudia anamorphs is also discussed.Key words: Ceratocystis, Ophiostoma, Leptographium, partial rDNA sequences, phylogeny.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".