↓ Skip to main content

Recommended names for pleomorphic genera in Dothideomycetes

Overview of attention for article published in IMA Fungus, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Recommended names for pleomorphic genera in Dothideomycetes
Published in
IMA Fungus, December 2015
DOI 10.5598/imafungus.2015.06.02.14
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amy Y. Rossman, Pedro W. Crous, Kevin D. Hyde, David L. Hawksworth, André Aptroot, Jose L. Bezerra, Jayarama D. Bhat, Eric Boehm, Uwe Braun, Saranyaphat Boonmee, Erio Camporesi, Putarak Chomnunti, Dong-Qin Dai, Melvina J. D’souza, Asha Dissanayake, E. B. Gareth Jones, Johannes Z. Groenewald, Margarita Hernández-Restrepo, Sinang Hongsanan, Walter M. Jaklitsch, Ruvishika Jayawardena, Li Wen Jing, Paul M. Kirk, James D. Lawrey, Ausana Mapook, Eric H. C. McKenzie, Jutamart Monkai, Alan J. L. Phillips, Rungtiwa Phookamsak, Huzefa A. Raja, Keith A. Seifert, Indunil Senanayake, Bernard Slippers, Satinee Suetrong, Kazuaki Tanaka, Joanne E. Taylor, Kasun M. Thambugala, Qing Tian, Saowaluck Tibpromma, Dhanushka N. Wanasinghe, Nalin N. Wijayawardene, Saowanee Wikee, Joyce H. C. Woudenberg, Hai-Xia Wu, Jiye Yan, Tao Yang, Ying Zhang

Abstract

This paper provides recommendations of one name for use among pleomorphic genera in Dothideomycetes by the Working Group on Dothideomycetes established under the auspices of the International Commission on the Taxonomy of Fungi (ICTF). A number of these generic names are proposed for protection because they do not have priority and/or the generic name selected for use is asexually typified. These include: Acrogenospora over Farlowiella; Alternaria over Allewia, Lewia, and Crivellia; Botryosphaeria over Fusicoccum; Camarosporula over Anthracostroma; Capnodium over Polychaeton; Cladosporium over Davidiella; Corynespora over Corynesporasca; Curvularia over Pseudocochliobolus; Elsinoë over Sphaceloma; Excipulariopsis over Kentingia; Exosporiella over Anomalemma; Exserohilum over Setosphaeria; Gemmamyces over Megaloseptoria; Kellermania over Planistromella; Kirschsteiniothelia over Dendryphiopsis; Lecanosticta over Eruptio; Paranectriella over Araneomyces; Phaeosphaeria over Phaeoseptoria; Phyllosticta over Guignardia; Podonectria over Tetracrium; Polythrincium over Cymadothea; Prosthemium over Pleomassaria; Ramularia over Mycosphaerella; Sphaerellopsis over Eudarluca; Sphaeropsis over Phaeobotryosphaeria; Stemphylium over Pleospora; Teratosphaeria over Kirramyces and Colletogloeopsis; Tetraploa over Tetraplosphaeria; Venturia over Fusicladium and Pollaccia; and Zeloasperisporium over Neomicrothyrium. Twenty new combinations are made: Acrogenospora carmichaeliana (Berk.) Rossman & Crous, Alternaria scrophulariae (Desm.) Rossman & Crous, Pyrenophora catenaria (Drechsler) Rossman & K.D. Hyde, P. dematioidea (Bubák & Wróbl.) Rossman & K.D. Hyde, P. fugax (Wallr.) Rossman & K.D. Hyde, P. nobleae (McKenzie & D. Matthews) Rossman & K.D. Hyde, P. triseptata (Drechsler) Rossman & K.D. Hyde, Schizothyrium cryptogamum (Batzer & Crous) Crous & Batzer, S. cylindricum (G.Y. Sun et al.) Crous & Batzer, S. emperorae (G.Y. Sun & L. Gao) Crous & Batzer, S. inaequale (G.Y. Sun & L. Gao) Crous & Batzer, S. musae (G.Y. Sun & L. Gao) Crous & Batzer, S. qianense (G.Y. Sun & Y.Q. Ma) Crous & Batzer, S. tardecrescens (Batzer & Crous) Crous & Batzer, S. wisconsinense (Batzer & Crous) Crous & Batzer, Teratosphaeria epicoccoides (Cooke & Massee) Rossman & W.C. Allen, Venturia catenospora (Butin) Rossman & Crous, V. convolvularum (Ondrej) Rossman & Crous, V. oleaginea (Castagne) Rossman & Crous, and V. phillyreae (Nicolas & Aggéry) Rossman & Crous, combs. nov. Three replacement names are also proposed: Pyrenophora grahamii Rossman & K.D. Hyde, Schizothyrium sunii Crous & Batzer, and Venturia barriae Rossman & Crous noms. nov.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 48 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Student > Master 7 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 10%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 8 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 63%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 12 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 January 2016.
All research outputs
#7,646,074
of 13,275,923 outputs
Outputs from IMA Fungus
#67
of 109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,481
of 357,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age from IMA Fungus
#5
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,275,923 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 109 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 357,796 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.