ReviewMycology2024
Call me by your name: Considerations of DNA sequences as types within wider discussions on fungal nomenclature.
Review in Mycology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper discusses the interaction between two substantial debates in taxonomy and nomenclature: The potential introduction of DNA-only types into fungal taxonomy and whether certain species names are offensive and should be changed. It argues that the acceptance of DNA sequences as types will likely lead to a proliferation of eponyms (species named after a person or persons) and that this will render them more likely to censure thus creating a point of instability in the fungal nomenclature. More fundamentally, it seeks to highlight the cultural and aesthetic attraction of names and to promote wider conversation on why we consider the Latin binomial central in our description of species.
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.