↓ Skip to main content

Saproamanita, a new name for both Lepidella E.-J. Gilbert and Aspidella E.-J. Gilbert (Amaniteae, Amanitaceae)

Overview of attention for article published in IMA Fungus, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
9 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Saproamanita, a new name for both Lepidella E.-J. Gilbert and Aspidella E.-J. Gilbert (Amaniteae, Amanitaceae)
Published in
IMA Fungus, June 2016
DOI 10.5598/imafungus.2016.07.01.07
Pubmed ID
Authors

Scott A. Redhead, Alfredo Vizzini, Dennis C. Drehmel, Marco Contu

Abstract

The genus Amanita has been divided into two monophyletic taxa, Amanita, an ectomycorrhizal genus, and Aspidella, a saprotrophic genus. The controversies and histories about recognition of the two genera based on trophic status are discussed. The name Aspidella E.-J. Gilbert is shown to be illegitimate and a later homonym of Aspidella E. Billings, a well-known generic name for an enigmatic fossil sometimes classified as a fungus or alga. The name Saproamanita is coined to replace Aspidella E.-J. Gilbert for the saprotrophic Amanitas, and a selection of previously molecularly analyzed species and closely classified grassland species are transferred to it along with selected similar taxa. The type illustration for the type species, S. vittadinii, is explained and a subgeneric classification accepting Amanita subgen. Amanitina and subgen. Amanita is proposed. Validation of the family name, Amanitaceae E.-J. Gilbert dating from 1940, rather than by Pouzar in 1983 is explained.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 20%
Student > Bachelor 3 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 15%
Researcher 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 4 20%
Unknown 3 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 50%
Environmental Science 2 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Unknown 5 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 September 2021.
All research outputs
#6,025,446
of 19,198,440 outputs
Outputs from IMA Fungus
#65
of 186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,961
of 274,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age from IMA Fungus
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,198,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,525 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them