Pleosporales

One hundred and five generic types of Pleosporales are described and illustrated. A brief introduction and detailed history with short notes on morphology, molecular phylogeny as well as a general conclusion of each genus are provided. For those genera where the type or a representative specimen is unavailable, a brief note is given. Altogether 174 genera of Pleosporales are treated. Phaeotrichaceae as well as Kriegeriella, Zeuctomorpha and Muroia are excluded from Pleosporales. Based on the multigene phylogenetic analysis, the suborder Massarineae is emended to accommodate five families, viz. Lentitheciaceae, Massarinaceae, Montagnulaceae, Morosphaeriaceae and Trematosphaeriaceae

Ευρετικές προσεγγίσεις του μοναδιάστατου προβλήματος πακετοποίησης

Article 59.1, of the International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi, and Plants (ICN; Melbourne Code), which addresses the nomenclature of pleomorphic fungi, became effective from 30 July 2011. Since that date, each fungal species can have one nomenclaturally correct name in a particular classification. All other previously used names for this species will be considered as synonyms. The older generic epithet takes priority over the younger name. Any widely used younger names proposed for use, must comply with Art. 57.2 and their usage should be approved by the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi (NCF). In this paper, we list all genera currently accepted by us in Dothideomycetes (belonging to 23 orders and 110 families), including pleomorphic and non-pleomorphic genera. In the case of pleomorphic genera, we follow the rulings of the current ICN and propose single generic names for future usage. The taxonomic placements of 1261 genera are listed as an outline. Protected names and suppressed names for 34 pleomorphic genera are listed separately. Notes and justifications are provided for possible proposed names after the list of genera. Notes are also provided on recent advances in our understanding of asexual and sexual morph linkages in Dothideomycetes. A phylogenetic tree based on four gene analyses supported 23 orders and 75 families, while 35 families still lack molecular data

Creative destruction in science

Drawing on the concept of a gale of creative destruction in a capitalistic economy, we argue that initiatives to assess the robustness of findings in the organizational literature should aim to simultaneously test competing ideas operating in the same theoretical space. In other words, replication efforts should seek not just to support or question the original findings, but also to replace them with revised, stronger theories with greater explanatory power. Achieving this will typically require adding new measures, conditions, and subject populations to research designs, in order to carry out conceptual tests of multiple theories in addition to directly replicating the original findings. To illustrate the value of the creative destruction approach for theory pruning in organizational scholarship, we describe recent replication initiatives re-examining culture and work morality, working parents\u2019 reasoning about day care options, and gender discrimination in hiring decisions. Significance statement It is becoming increasingly clear that many, if not most, published research findings across scientific fields are not readily replicable when the same method is repeated. Although extremely valuable, failed replications risk leaving a theoretical void\u2014 reducing confidence the original theoretical prediction is true, but not replacing it with positive evidence in favor of an alternative theory. We introduce the creative destruction approach to replication, which combines theory pruning methods from the field of management with emerging best practices from the open science movement, with the aim of making replications as generative as possible. In effect, we advocate for a Replication 2.0 movement in which the goal shifts from checking on the reliability of past findings to actively engaging in competitive theory testing and theory building. Scientific transparency statement The materials, code, and data for this article are posted publicly on the Open Science Framework, with links provided in the article

The effects of the addition of mechanical traction to physical therapy on low back pain? A systematic review with meta-analysis

Objective: This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the comparative effects of different types or parameters of lumbar traction in low back pain (LBP). Methods: CENTRAL, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science, PEDro, PubMed, and Scopus databases were searched from their inception to March 31, 2021. We considered all RCTs comparing different types or parameters of lumbar traction on adults who complained of LBP with or without lumbar radiculopathy (LR). Any restriction regarding publication time or language was applied. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, performed the quality assessment, and extracted the results. Meta-analysis employed a random-effects model. Results: Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria for qualitative analysis, and five were pooled. Meta-analyses of results from five studies on LBP with LR showed no significant difference between diverse tractions modalities at short-term follow-up. Very low to low-quality evidence supports these results. High-force and low-force traction demonstrated clinically significant improvements in pain. Conclusion: The literature suggests the short-term effectiveness of traction on pain in LBP with LR, regardless of the type or the dosage employed. Different effects of traction other the mechanical ones can be hypothesized. This systematic review may be relevant for clinical practice due to the similar effects of different traction types or dosages. Level of evidence: Level I, Therapeutic Study