↓ Skip to main content

Overlooked competing asexual and sexually typified generic names of Ascomycota with recommendations for their use or protection

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Overlooked competing asexual and sexually typified generic names of Ascomycota with recommendations for their use or protection
Published in
IMA Fungus, November 2016
DOI 10.5598/imafungus.2016.07.02.09
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amy Y. Rossman, W. Cavan Allen, Uwe Braun, Lisa A. Castlebury, Priscila Chaverri, Pedro W. Crous, David L. Hawksworth, Kevin D. Hyde, Peter Johnston, Lorenzo Lombard, Megan Romberg, Rob A. Samson, Keith A. Seifert, Jeffrey K. Stone, Dhanushka Udayanga, James F. White

Abstract

With the change to one scientific name for fungal species, numerous papers have been published with recommendations for use or protection of competing generic names in major groups of ascomycetes. Although genera in each group of fungi were carefully considered, some competing generic names were overlooked. This paper makes recommendations for additional competing genera not considered in previous papers. Chairs of relevant Working Groups of the ICTF were consulted in the development of these recommendations. A number of generic names need protection, specifically Amarenographium over Amarenomyces, Amniculicola over Anguillospora, Balansia over Ephelis, Claviceps over Sphacelia, Drepanopeziza over Gloeosporidiella and Gloeosporium, Golovinomyces over Euoidium, Holwaya over Crinium, Hypocrella over Aschersonia, Labridella over Griphosphaerioma, Metacapnodium over Antennularia, and Neonectria over Cylindrocarpon and Heliscus. The following new combinations are made: Amniculicola longissima, Atichia maunauluana, Diaporthe columnaris, D. liquidambaris, D. longiparaphysata, D. palmicola, D. tersa, Elsinoë bucidae, E.caricae, E. choisyae, E. paeoniae, E. psidii, E. zorniae, Eupelte shoemakeri, Godronia myrtilli, G. raduloides, Sarcinella mirabilis, S. pulchra, Schizothyrium jamaicense, and Trichothallus niger. Finally, one new species name, Diaporthe azadirachte, is introduced to validate an earlier name, and the conservation of Discula with a new type, D. destructiva, is recommended.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 23%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 6 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Chemistry 2 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 13 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 November 2023.
All research outputs
#8,537,346
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from IMA Fungus
#117
of 254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,274
of 416,880 outputs
Outputs of similar age from IMA Fungus
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 254 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 416,880 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.