Resolution of the nomenclature for niu‐chang‐chih ( <i>Taiwanofungus camphoratus</i> ), an important medicinal polypore
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Niu‐chang‐chih, a medicinal polypore restricted to Taiwan on the endemic tree species Cinnamomum kanehirae , currently goes by the names Antrodia cinnamomea T.T. Chang & W.N. Chou, A. camphorata (M. Zang & C.H. Su) Sheng H. Wu & al., and Taiwanofungus camphoratus (M. Zang & C.H. Su) Sheng H. Wu & al., the latter two based on Ganoderma camphoratum M. Zang & C.H. Su. The basidiocarps on the holotypes for the two basionyms Antrodia cinnamomea and Ganoderma camphoratum are of niu‐chang‐chih. The first validly published name that was applied to this species was G. camphoratum M. Zang & C.H. Su published in 1990. However, the original type of G. camphoratum consisted of mixed material, consisting chiefly of a basidiocarp of niu‐chang‐chih but also of the spores of another unrelated fungus. The two elements are represented in the original description and accompanying illustrations. Later Chang & Chou (2004) lectotypifed G. camphoratum limiting it to the spores described and illustrated by Zang and Su, the only portion of the original type that Chang and Chou believed to belong in Ganoderma , and applied the name Antrodia cinnamomea Chang & Chou (1995) to niu‐chang‐chih. Many, however, reject Chang and Chou's conclusions and continue to apply the name Ganoderma camphoratum , and combinations based on it (i.e., Antrodia camphoratum, Taiwanofungus camphoratus ), to niu‐chang‐chih, relegating Antrodia cinnamomea to synonymy. Based on careful examination of the type of G. camphoratum , it is concluded that the spores upon which Chang and Chou's lectotype is based are a minor admixture with the original gathering of the niu‐chang‐chih specimen and thus cannot serve as the lectotype for the name Ganoderma camphoratum. Ganoderma camphoratum is lectotypified here so as to exclude the spores present in the original holotype that are not from niu‐chang‐chih. Furthermore, since this conclusion could be subject to challenge and the species is exceptionally important medicinally and economically, we also propose to conserve the name with a conserved type that is consistent with the lectotype effected herein. An overview of the taxonomy of niu‐chang‐chih is also provided and a new combination, Taiwanofungus salmoneus , for a related species is effected.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".