ArticleIMA fungus2024
The genus Cortinarius should not (yet) be split.
Article in IMA fungus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Should describing a new species be science or data release? Rethinking introductions in fungal taxonomy.IMA fungus · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Fungal Planet description sheets: 1781-1866.Persoonia · 2025Article
- Taxonomy and phylogeny ofPersoonia · 2025Article
- Discovery of two newFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The genus Cortinarius (Agaricales, Basidiomycota) is one of the most species-rich fungal genera, with thousands of species reported. Cortinarius species are important ectomycorrhizal fungi and form associations with many vascular plants globally. Until recently Cortinarius was the single genus of the family Cortinariaceae, despite several attempts to provide a workable, lower-rank hierarchical structure based on subgenera and sections. The first phylogenomic study for this group elevated the old genus Cortinarius to family level and the family was split into ten genera, of which seven were described as new. Here, by careful re-examination of the recently published phylogenomic dataset, we detected extensive gene-tree/species-tree conflicts using both concatenation and multispecies coalescent approaches. Our analyses demonstrate that the Cortinarius phylogeny remains unresolved and the resulting phylogenomic hypotheses suffer from very short and unsupported branches in the backbone. We can confirm monophyly of only four out of ten suggested new genera, leaving uncertain the relationships between each other and the general branching order. Thorough exploration of the tree space demonstrated that the topology on which Cortinarius revised classification relies on does not represent the best phylogenetic hypothesis and should not be used as constrained topology to include additional species. For this reason, we argue that based on available evidence the genus Cortinarius should not (yet) be split. Moreover, considering that phylogenetic uncertainty translates to taxonomic uncertainty, we advise for careful evaluation of phylogenomic datasets before proposing radical taxonomic and nomenclatural changes.
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.