Taxonomic Re-Evaluation of Three Related Species of Graphium, Based on Morphology, Ecology and Phylogeny
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two fungi associated with bark beetles, Graphium pseudormiticum (described in 1994) and Rhexographium fimbriisporum (described in 1995), have two micromorphological characters in common. Both species produce conidia with conspicuous basal frills, and the conidia align in chains, despite being produced in slime. The association of G. pseudormiticum with the pine bark beetle, Orthotomicus erosus, and the association of R. fimbriisporum with the spruce bark beetle, Ips typographus, suggest ecological differences between the two fungal species. Analyses of micromorphology and phylogenetic analyses of aligned 18S and ITS sequences suggest that these two species are congeneric and should be classified in Graphium but that they represent distinct species. A collection of strains tentatively identified as Graphium spp., isolated from Ips typographus on Picea abies, Ips cembrae on Larix decidua and Tomicus minor on Pinus sylvestris in Austria share the same unusual basal conidial frills and conidial chains. Isolates from spruce were identified as G. fimbriisporum and those from pine as G. pseudormiticum. The strains from Ips cembrae on Larix decidua, distinguished by the reddish color of their colonies, microscopic structures and molecular characteristics, are described as the new species Graphium laricis sp. nov., and the close relationship of this species with the other two species is confirmed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".