Phylogenetic relationships in <i>Hypomyces</i> and allied genera, with emphasis on species growing on wood-decaying homobasidiomycetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To infer phylogenetic relationships among species of Hypomyces (Fr.) Tul and allied genera, partial sequences of the 28S rDNA were obtained for 21 strains representing 19 species. On the basis of these data and 38 sequences obtained from GenBank, phylogenetic analyses were performed using the programs PAUP and Pee-Wee. Hypomyces appears to be paraphyletic, with species having wet-conidial phialidic anamorphs more closely related to other genera. Hypomyces chrysostomus Berk & Broome is a sister group to the clade that includes species of Aphysiostroma Barrasa et al., Arachnocrea Moravec, and Hypocrea Fr. Based on morphological and molecular evidence, a new genus, Sporophagomyces, is described for Hypomyces chrysostomus and two allied species. Hypomyces broomeanus Tul. forms one clade with species of Sphaerostilbella Sacc. and is transferred to this genus. The recognition of Arachnocrea is justified. The integration of Cladobotryum Nees species that are not known to undergo sexual reproduction with Hypomyces species that possess Cladobotryum anamorphs receives strong support, but the whole complex of these species appears to be paraphyletic. However, constraint trees, which require monophyly of all these ana- and pleo-morphic species, do not appear significantly less likely than the other trees obtained under maximum likelihood or parsimony criteria. For the remaining species of Hypomyces, four distinct lineages are distinguished.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".