<i>Pseudocyphellaria crocata</i>, <i>P. neglecta</i> and <i>P. perpetua</i> from the Northern and Southern Hemispheres are a phylogenetic species and share cyanobionts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pseudocyphellaria crocata, P. neglecta and P. perpetua specimens were examined to investigate links between genetic variation and morphology, geographical distribution and cyanobiont specificity. Fungal internal transcribed spacer (ITS), beta-tubulin and cyanobacterial tRNA(Leu) (UAA) intron sequences were used to investigate symbiont diversity in these lichens. Specimens were morphologically distinct but could not be distinguished by ITS sequences. Phylogenetic analyses split the P. crocata specimens into two clades, the larger of which contained P. neglecta and P. perpetua. Five cyanobionts were identified; two of these were in a number of specimens, while three were each restricted to a single lichen thallus. Fungus-specific molecular markers indicated that all specimens belonged to a single phylogenetic species. However, this may contain a cryptic species. Geography was linked to genetic diversity with Canadian specimens forming a monophyletic group, and most Southern Hemisphere specimens grouping together, although Chile represented a hot spot of genetic diversity. There was no connection between fungal genetic diversity and cyanobiont choice, consistent with the presence of a common pool of cyanobionts.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".