DNA sequence data and morphology define<i>Cryphonectria</i>species in Europe, China, and Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cryphonectria includes important tree pathogens as well as species believed to be saprophytes. Recent phylogenetic studies have concentrated on North American and southern hemisphere Cryphonectria spp., but little is known about Asian and European taxa. In this study we identify and differentiate among the species occurring in Europe, China, and Japan using morphological and phylogenetic comparisons among the Cryphonectria species. Phylogenetic comparisons were based on sequence data from the ribosomal ITS operon and two regions in the β-tubulin gene. Unknown Japanese and Chinese isolates showing different cultural features than those of Cryphonectria parasitica (Murrill) M.E. Barr from Japan and the USA, grouped with isolates of Cryphonectria nitschkei (G.H. Otth) M.E. Barr from Quercus spp. and Rhus javanica L. Isolates of Cryphonectria havanensis (Bruner) M.E. Barr from Quercus grosseserrata Blume, Castanopsis cuspidata Schottky, Pyrus sinensis Lindl., and Eucalyptus globulus Labill. also grouped in this phylogenetic clade. We propose that Cryphonectria nitschkei and the fungus that has been referred to as Cryphonectria havanensis in Japan should be treated as a single taxon. Phylogenetic and morphological data also suggest that there are two species currently representing Cryphonectria radicalis (Schwein.: Fr.) M.E. Barr in Europe. One of these species is similar to the type specimen of Cryphonectria radicalis, while the other species probably is new.Key words: Cryphonectria parasitica, Cryphonectria radicalis, Cryphonectria havanensis, Cryphonectria macrospora, Cryphonectria nitschkei, Diaporthales.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".