ArticlePersoonia2015
A monograph of Otidea (Pyronemataceae, Pezizomycetes).
Article in Persoonia, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extract optimization and biological activities of Otidea onotica using Artificial Neural Network-Genetic Algorithm and response surface methodology techniques.BMC biotechnology · 2025Article
- Phylogenetic Analysis Reveals Four New Species ofBiology · 2022Article
- New Species and New Records ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A synopsis of the saddle fungi (Persoonia · 2017Article
- Species limits and relationships within Otidea inferred from multiple gene phylogenies.Persoonia · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The easily recognised genus Otidea is subjected to numerous problems in species identification. A number of old names have undergone various interpretations, materials from different continents have not been compared and misidentifications occur commonly. In this context, Otidea is monographed, based on our multiple gene phylogenies assessing species boundaries and comparative morphological characters (see Hansen & Olariaga 2015). All names combined in or synonymised with Otidea are dealt with. Thirty-three species are treated, with full descriptions and colour illustrations provided for 25 of these. Five new species are described, viz. O. borealis, O. brunneoparva, O. oregonensis, O. pseudoleporina and O. subformicarum. Otidea cantharella var. minor and O. onotica var. brevispora are elevated to species rank. Otideopsis kaushalii is combined in the genus Otidea. A key to the species of Otidea is given. An LSU dataset containing 167 sequences (with 44 newly generated in this study) is analysed to place collections and determine whether the named Otidea sequences in GenBank were identified correctly. Fourty-nine new ITS sequences were generated in this study. The ITS region is too variable to align across Otidea, but had low intraspecific variation and it aided in species identifications. Thirty type collections were studied, and ITS and LSU sequences are provided for 12 of these. A neotype is designated for O. cantharella and epitypes for O. concinna, O. leporina and O. onotica, along with several lectotypifications. The apothecial colour and shape, and spore characters are important for species identification. We conclude that to distinguish closely related or morphologically similar species, a combination of additional features are needed, i.e. the shape of the paraphyses, ectal excipulum structure, types of ectal excipulum resinous exudates and their reactions in Melzer's reagent and KOH, tomentum and basal mycelium colours and exudates. The KOH reaction of excipular resinous exudates and basal mycelium are introduced as novel taxonomic characters.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.