<i>Asterophora</i> Ditmar ex Link 1809 versus <i>Nyctalis</i> Fries 1825, and the status of <i>Ugola</i> Adanson 1763
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Redhead, S. A. & Seifert, K. A.: Asterophora Ditmar ex Link 1809 versus Nyctalis Fries 1825, and the status of Ugola Adanson 1763. – Taxon 50: 243–268. 2001. – ISSN 0040‐0262. The use of two generic names, Asterophora and Nyctalis, for the same fungi (holomorphs) has been contradictory, and nomenclatural application remains unresolved after 175 years. Controversy first arose from a lack of understanding of the biology of these pleomorphic fungi, but debate now rests upon the interpretation of the type of Asterophora, either as an anamorph or a teleomorph, as influenced by modifications to Article 59 of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature over several decades. The historical record is reviewed and Asterophora is accepted as the holomorphic generic name for three species, A. lycoperdoides, A. parasitica, and A. mirabilis. Asterophora lycoperdoides (Bull.) Ditmar is proposed separately for conservation over a sanctioned name, Asterophora agaricoides Fr.: Fr. previously largely ignored. Ugola is the oldest generic name applicable to the anamorphs. The following new combinations are proposed: Ugola physaroides (≡ Asterophora physaroides ), U. baryana (≡ Hypomyces baryanus ), and Asterophora mirabilis (≡ Nyctalis mirabilis ).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".