Taxonomic revision of Marasmius Fr. and Marasmiaceae Roze ex Kühner based on multigene phylogenetics and morphological evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many taxonomic and systematic rearrangements were proposed to Marasmius Fr. since its original concept in 1835, and since 1980 when it became the type of Marasmiaceae. These were based on morphological and/or more recently molecular phylogenetic studies. This study conducted a comprehensive taxonomic and systematic evaluation of Marasmius that benefits the whole family, implementing multilocus (SSU, LSU, ITS, rpb2 and ef1-α ) phylogenetic analyses integrated with morphological and other features. The resulting trees support (1) a Marasmiaceae clade-based circumscription within Marasmiineae, (2) a Marasmius clade-based circumscription within Marasmiaceae, and (3) a subgenus-section-subsection-series system. Two subgenera are proposed: Globulares and Marasmius . Marasmius auton. subgen. includes Crinis-eques sect. nov., sect. Marasmius , Sanguirotales sect. nov., Variabilispori sect. nov., and Sicciformes sect. nov., while Globulares subg. nov. groups sect. Globulares and sect. Sicci . Four subsections are proposed in sect. Globulares and three in sect. Marasmius and sect. Sicciformes . Seventeen series were defined in sect. Globulares and three in sect. Sicci . Selected traits were assessed for their phylogenetic signals within Marasmius , providing a robust framework for a natural system. Based on this analysis, Marasmiaceae includes Chaetocalathus , Crinipellis , Marasmius and Moniliophthora/Paramarasmius , and Campanellaceae fam. nov. includes Brunneocorticium , Campanella/Tetrapyrgos , Neocampanella , and Marasmiellus sect. Candidi . New species, names, combinations and epitypes are also proposed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".