Images

neo1.jpg
Copyright © 2018 pdvmushroom
Photo by pdvmushroom
20180129_120748.jpg
neo2.jpg
Photo by pdvmushroom

Proposed Names

58% (1)
Based on chemical features: DNA match (566/572) with Neohygrocybe ingrata sequences in GenBank
87% (1)
Based on chemical features: DNA match (566/572) with Neohygrocybe ingrata sequences in GenBank

Please login to propose your own names and vote on existing names.

= Observer’s choice
= Current consensus

Comments

Add Comment
Query coverage is low because
By: Alan Rockefeller (Alan Rockefeller)
2019-02-26 01:21:35 CST (-0500)

Query coverage is low because this sequence includes ITS and the first part of LSU, however that part of LSU is rarely sequenced. The parts which do matter (ITS1, 5.8SR and ITS2) match up very well. In this case, low query coverage isn’t indicative of a poor match – if my sequence wasn’t half LSU, 50% query coverage would be cause for grave concern.

It’s possible that a type study could indicate that the real N. ingrata is something else and all the sequences currently in GenBank are misnamed, but that’s unlikely.

The best matches
By: Christian (Christian Schwarz)
2019-02-26 00:58:09 CST (-0500)

are only 48-50% query coverage, and they are non-type specimens, so I don’t think we can really count this as “verified” by DNA, but perhaps the results are suggestive of that species in some sensu

Created: 2018-02-04 04:00:20 CST (-0500)
Last modified: 2019-02-26 01:21:36 CST (-0500)
Viewed: 82 times, last viewed: 2020-08-31 16:48:14 CDT (-0400)
Show Log