Phylogenetic generic classification of parmelioid lichens (Parmeliaceae, Ascomycota) based on molecular, morphological and chemical evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Parmelioid lichens are a diverse and ubiquitous group of foliose lichens. Generic delimitation in parmelioid lichens has been in a state of flux since the late 1960s with the segregation of the large, heterogeneous genus Parmelia into numerous smaller genera. Recent molecular phylogenetic studies have demonstrated that some of these new genera were monophyletic, some were not, and others, previously believed to be unrelated, fell within single monophyletic groups, indicating the need for a revision of the generic delimitations. This study aims to give an overview of current knowledge of the major clades of all parmelioid lichens. For this, we assembled a dataset of 762 specimens, including 31 of 33 currently accepted parmelioid genera (and 63 of 84 accepted genera of Parmeliaceae). We performed maximum likelihood and Bayesian analyses of combined datasets including two, three and four loci. Based on these phylogenies and the correlation of morphological and chemical characters that characterize monophyletic groups, we accept 27 genera within nine main clades. We re‐circumscribe several genera and reduce Parmelaria to synonymy with Parmotrema. Emodomelanelia Divakar & A. Crespo is described as a new genus (type: E. masonii). Nipponoparmelia (Kurok.) K.H. Moon, Y. Ohmura & Kashiw. ex A. Crespo & al. is elevated to generic rank and 15 new combinations are proposed (in the genera Flavoparmelia, Parmotrema, Myelochroa, Melanelixia and Nipponoparmelia). A short discussion of the accepted genera is provided and remaining challenges and areas requiring additional taxon sampling are identified.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".