↓ Skip to main content

A phylogenetically-based nomenclature for Cordycipitaceae (Hypocreales)

Overview of attention for article published in IMA Fungus, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#14 of 136)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
A phylogenetically-based nomenclature for Cordycipitaceae (Hypocreales)
Published in
IMA Fungus, November 2017
DOI 10.5598/imafungus.2017.08.02.08
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryan M. Kepler, J. Jennifer Luangsa-ard, Nigel L. Hywel-Jones, C. Alisha Quandt, Gi-Ho Sung, Stephen A. Rehner, M. Catherine Aime, Terry W. Henkel, Tatiana Sanjuan, Rasoul Zare, Mingjun Chen, Zhengzhi Li, Amy Y. Rossman, Joseph W. Spatafora, Bhushan Shrestha

Abstract

The ending of dual nomenclatural systems for pleomorphic fungi in 2011 requires the reconciliation of competing names, ideally linked through culture based or molecular methods. The phylogenetic systematics of Hypocreales and its many genera have received extensive study in the last two decades, however resolution of competing names in Cordycipitaceae has not yet been addressed. Here we present a molecular phylogenetic investigation of Cordycipitaceae that enables identification of competing names in this family, and provides the basis upon which these names can be maintained or suppressed. The taxonomy presented here seeks to harmonize competing names by principles of priority, recognition of monophyletic groups, and the practical usage of affected taxa. In total, we propose maintaining nine generic names, Akanthomyces, Ascopolyporus, Beauveria, Cordyceps, Engyodontium, Gibellula, Hyperdermium, Parengyodontium, and Simplicillium and the rejection of eight generic names, Evlachovaea, Granulomanus, Isaria, Lecanicillium, Microhilum, Phytocordyceps, Synsterigmatocystis, and Torrubiella. Two new generic names, Hevansia and Blackwellomyces, and a new species, Beauveria blattidicola, are described. New combinations are also proposed in the genera Akanthomyces, Beauveria, Blackwellomyces, and Hevansia.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 20%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Other 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 10 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 47%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Environmental Science 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 16 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 28 July 2020.
All research outputs
#1,985,264
of 15,584,086 outputs
Outputs from IMA Fungus
#14
of 136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,764
of 410,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age from IMA Fungus
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,584,086 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 136 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 410,180 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 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