MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028201581 · doi:10.1139/b04-028

Morphology and anatomy of chasmolithic versus epilithic growth: a taxonomic revision of inconspicuous saxicolous<i>Buellia</i>species from the Sonoran Desert Region generally ascribed to the "<i>Buellia punctata</i>" group

2004· article· en· W2028201581 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Frank Bungartz, T H Nash, Bruce D. Ryan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLichen and fungal ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of CanberraAustralian National UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsThallusBiologyTaxonomy (biology)SetaBotanyConidiumGenus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Six saxicolous species of Buellia, which were previously generally identified as Buellia punctata (Hoffm.) A. Massal., were examined from the Sonoran Desert. None of the species belongs to Beullia punctata s. str. Though inconspicuous, it can be demonstrated that the thallus morphology of these species is quite distinct and far less variable than previously assumed. Most species are epilithic, even though their thalli also show some degree of substrate penetration. Buellia sequax (Nyl.) Zahlbr., not previously reported from North America, is exclusively chasmolithic. Three new species with epilithic thalli, Beullia christophii Bungartz sp. nov., Beullia ryanii Bungartz sp. nov., and Beullia tergua Bungartz sp. nov., are described. Two species with filiform conidia are not treated in the genus Amandinea. We discuss why the current delimitation of this genus, based solely on conidial shape, is rejected: Buellia pullata Tuck., with filiform conidia, is consequently not transferred into Amandinea. Amandinea lecideina (H. Mayrhofer &amp; Poelt) Scheid. &amp; H. Mayrhofer is synonymized with Beullia prospersa (Nyl.) Riddle.Key words: North America, taxonomy, Physciaceae, Amandinea, conidia, thallus morphology, new species.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicLichen and fungal ecologyFrench-language works237,207