CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · Science & Nature

Thielaviopsis basicola

species of fungus

Specimen drawers, botanical folios and brass scientific instruments under study light
Science and natureInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionSep 10, 2026
Entity authorityQ7783990 ↗
Source-derived summary

Thielaviopsis basicola is the plant-pathogen fungus responsible for black root rot disease. This particular disease has a large host range, affecting woody ornamentals, herbaceous ornamentals, agronomic crops, and even vegetable crops. Examples of susceptible hosts include petunia, pansy, poinsettia, tobacco, cotton, carrot, lettuce, tomato, and others. Symptoms of this disease resemble nutrient deficiency but are truly a result of the decaying root systems of plants. Common symptoms include chlorotic lower foliage, yellowing of plant, stunting or wilting, and black lesions along the roots. The lesions along the roots may appear red at first, getting darker and turning black as the disease progresses. Black root lesions that begin in the middle of a root can also spread further along the roots in either direction. Due to the nature of the pathogen, the disease can easily be identified by the black lesions along the roots, especially when compared to healthy roots. The black lesions that appear along the roots are a result of the formation of chlamydospores, resting spores of the fungus that contribute to its pathogenicity. The chlamydospores are a dark brown-black color and cause the "discoloration" of the roots when they are produced in large amounts.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Thielaviopsis basicola” as species of fungus. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.

Editorial reviewUseful for establishing the present vocabulary of the subject while preserving a route back to the evidence on which that vocabulary rests. The current 196-word lead offers orientation but no explicit four-digit date, so chronology should not be assumed. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where Thielaviopsis, basicola and species can be independently traced.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The subject matters to the science & nature register because the source frames it as species of fungus. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.

Evidence profile

Datasets, specimens, observations and peer-reviewed methods provide the appropriate test for the technical claims summarized here. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 10, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7783990. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.

Critical limits

A general summary may omit uncertainty, sample limits or methodological disagreement that is explicit in the technical record. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.

Best used for
  • Current terminology
  • Classification context
  • Finding cited technical literature
Verify next

Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Thielaviopsis basicola”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Thielaviopsis basicola primary sources, Thielaviopsis basicola archive and Thielaviopsis research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Thielaviopsis basicola”?
  2. Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
  3. Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Thielaviopsis basicola” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.