<i>Hypogymnia recurva</i>and<i>Hypogymnia wilfiana</i>spp. nov., two new lichens from western North AmericaThis paper is one of a selection of papers published as part of the special Schofield Gedenkschrift.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypogymnia metaphysodes was first described from Japan and Sakhalin, and later reported from western North America. Here we show that the North American material currently referred to H. metaphysodes differs from that species not only morphologically and chemically, but also in ascospore size and shape. We also show that the North American material is in fact heterogeneous, and can be assigned to two well-defined species here described as new: Hypogymnia recurva sp. nov. and H. wilfiana sp. nov. Both of these lichens contain distinctive secondary metabolites: vittatolic acid in the case of H. recurva, and 2-methylene-3-carboxy-18-hydroxynonadecanoic acid (“apinnatic acid”), reported here for the first time from Hypogymnia , in H. wilfiana. Both of our new species are so far known only from western North America, where they occur primarily as epiphytes on the branches of conifers. Hypogymnia metaphysodes s. str. has not yet been reliably reported from this region and should be excluded from the North American lichen flora.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.011 | 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 teacher head, 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".