The cantharelloid clade: dealing with incongruent gene trees and phylogenetic reconstruction methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We reassessed the circumscription of the cantharelloid clade and identified monophyletic groups by using nLSU, nSSU, mtSSU and RPB2 sequence data. Results agreed with earlier studies that placed the genera Cantharellus, Craterellus, Hydnum, Clavulina, Membranomyces, Multiclavula, Sistotrema, Botryobasidium and the family Ceratobasidiaceae in that clade. Phylogenetic analyses support monophyly of all genera except Sistotrema, which was highly polyphyletic. Strongly supported monophyletic groups were: (i) Cantharellus-Craterellus, Hydnum, and the Sistotrema confluens group; (ii) Clavulina-Membranomyces and the S. brinkmannii-oblongisporum group, with Multiclavula being possibly sister of that clade; (iii) the Sistotrema eximum-octosporum group; (iv) Sistotrema adnatum and S. coronilla. Positions of Sistotrema raduloides and S. athelioides were unresolved, as were basal relationships. Botryobasidium was well supported as the sister taxon of all the above taxa, while Ceratobasidiaceae was the most basal lineage. The relationship between Tulasnella and members of the cantharelloid clade will require further scrutiny, although there is cumulative evidence that they are probably sister groups. The rates of molecular evolution of both the large and small nuclear ribosomal RNA genes (nuc-rDNA) are much higher in Cantharellus, Craterellus and Tulasnella than in the other cantharelloid taxa, and analyses of nuc-rDNA sequences strongly placed Tulasnella close to Cantharellus-Craterellus. In contrast analyses with RPB2 and mtSSU sequences placed Tulasnella at the base of the cantharelloid clade. Our attempt to reconstruct a "supertree" from tree topologies resulting from separate analyses that avoided phylogenetic reconstruction problems associated with missing data and/or unalignable sequences proved unsuccessful.
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 | 0.028 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".