Anamorphs in the Strophariaceae (Basidiomycota, Agaricales)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe and illustrate conidiogenesis in 21 species of Strophariaceae sensu Singer in culture, including first reports of conidiogenesis from nine species. Two modes of thallic conidiogenesis were revealed. The first mode, present in Hypholoma capnoides (Fr.) P. Kumm., Hypholoma fasciculare (Fr.) P. Kumm., Hypholoma marginatum (Pers.) J. Schröt., Hypholoma subericaeum (Fr.) Kühner, Hypholoma sublateritium (Schaeff.) Quél., Kuehneromyces mutabilis (Schaeff.) Singer & A.H. Sm., Pholiota lenta (Pers.) Singer, Pholiota lucifera (Lasch) Quél., Pholiota mixta (Fr.) Kuyper & Tjall.-Beuk., Pholiota spumosa (Fr.) Singer, Psilocybe cf. coprophila (Bull.) P. Kumm., Psilocybe inquilina (Fr.) Bres., Psilocybe semilanceata (Fr.) P. Kumm., Psilocybe sp., Stropharia rugosoannulata Farl. ex Murrill, and Stropharia semiglobata (Batsch) Quél., is characterized by straight or often coiled conidiogenous hyphae, not or only slightly sympodially proliferating conidiophores lacking geniculate parts, and hyaline, rod-shaped conidia. Conidiogenesis in Pholiota aurivella (Batsch) P. Kumm., Pholiota gummosa (Lasch) Singer, and Pholiota squarrosa (Batsch) P. Kumm. followed a second mode, distinguished by straight conidiogenous hyphae, sympodially proliferating geniculate conidiophores, and coloured, swollen conidia formed on older mycelia. These two modes also differed concerning the number of nuclei in the conidia. Pholiota alnicola (Fr.) Singer and Pholiota tuberculosa (Schaeff.) P. Kumm. possessed specific modes of conidiogenesis that deviated from the two prevalent modes described above. Careful analysis of anamorph descriptions compiled from literature supports these modes and allows conidia to be distinguished from nondetaching hyphal swellings that have also been designated as conidia in the past.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".