Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25083411›Full record

ArticleIMA fungus2014

Recommendations on generic names competing for use in Leotiomycetes (Ascomycota).

Peter R Johnston, Keith A Seifert, Jeffrey K Stone, Amy Y Rossman, Ludmila Marvanová

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in IMA fungus, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 128 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Phylogeny ofPersoonia · 2026
    Article
  2. Advancing the taxonomy ofIMA fungus · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A taxonomic re-evaluation ofMycoscience · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Fungal Planet description sheets: 1614-1696.Fungal systematics and evolution · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Phenotypic Characterization and Phylogeny ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  12. From Genes to Molecules, Secondary Metabolism inPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. A review ofStudies in mycology · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Redefining genera of cereal pathogens:Fungal systematics and evolution · 2021
    Article
  20. New and Interesting Fungi. 3.Fungal systematics and evolution · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Peter R JohnstonLandcare Research, Private Bag 92170, Auckland 1142, New Zealand;
Keith A SeifertBiodiversity (Mycology and Microbiology), Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Jeffrey K StoneDepartment of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331, USA.
Amy Y RossmanSystematic Mycology & Microbiology Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service-USDA, Beltsville, MD 20705, USA.
Ludmila MarvanováCzech Collection of Microorganisms, Institute of Experimental Biology, Masaryk University, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada · CABeltsville Agricultural Research Center · USManaaki Whenua – Landcare Research · NZOregon State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In advancing to one scientific name for fungi, this paper treats genera competing for use in the phylogenetically defined class Leotiomycetes except for genera of Erysiphales. Two groups traditionally included in the so-called "inoperculate discomycetes" have been excluded from this class and are also not included here, specifically Geoglossomycetes and Orbiliomycetes. A recommendation is made about the generic name to use in cases in which two or more generic names are synonyms or taxonomically congruent along with the rationale for the recommendation. In some cases the recommended generic name does not have priority or is based on an asexual type species, thus needs to be protected and ultimately approved according to Art. 57.2 of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants (ICN). A table is presented listing all competing generic names and their type species noting the recommended generic name. New combinations are introduced for the oldest epithet in the recommended genus including Ascocalyx berenice, Ascoconidium purpurascens, Ascocoryne albida, A. trichophora, Blumeriella filipendulae, B. ceanothi, Botrytis arachidis, B. fritillariae-pallidoflori, Calloria urticae, Calycellina aspera, Dematioscypha delicata, Dermea abietinum, D. boycei, D. stellata, Diplocarpon alpestre, D. fragariae, Godroniopsis peckii, Grovesinia moricola, Heterosphaera sublineolata, Hyphodiscus brachyconium, H. brevicollaris, H. luxurians, Leptotrochila campanulae, Monilinia polystroma, Neofabraea actinidae, N. citricarpa, N. vagabunda, Oculimacula aestiva, O. anguioides, Pezicula brunnea, P. californiae, P. cornina, P. diversispora, P. ericae, P. melanogena, P. querciphila, P. radicicola, P. rhizophila, Phialocephala piceae, Pilidium lythri, Rhabdocline laricis, Streptotinia streptothrix, Symphyosirinia parasitica, S. rosea, Unguiculariopsis caespitosa, and Vibrissea laxa.

Indexed as

Article 59AscomycetesFungiinoperculate discomycetesnomenclatureone fungus–one namepleomorphic fungitaxonomyunit nomenclature

Identifiers

PMID25083411
PMCPMC4107902
OpenAlexW2016347669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.