The lichens of the Alps – an annotated checklist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the first attempt to provide an overview of the lichen diversity of the Alps, one of the biogegraphically most important and emblematic mountain systems worldwide. The checklist includes all lichenised species, plus a set of non- or doubtfully lichenised taxa frequently treated by lichenologists, excluding non-lichenised lichenicolous fungi. Largely based on recent national or regional checklists, it provides a list of all infrageneric taxa (with synonyms) hitherto reported from the Alps, with data on their distribution in eight countries (Austria, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Italy, Slovenia, Switzerland) and in 42 Operational Geographic Units, mostly corresponding to administrative subdivisions within the countries. Data on the main substrates and on the altitudinal distribution are also provided. A short note points to the main ecological requirements of each taxon and/or to open taxonomic problems. Particularly poorly known taxa are flagged and often provided with a short description, to attract the attention of specialists. The total number of infrageneric taxa is 3,163, including 117 non- or doubtfully lichenised taxa. The richness of the lichen biota fairly well corresponds with the percent of the Alpine area occupied by each country: Austria (2,337 taxa), Italy (2,169), France (2,028), Switzerland (1,835), Germany (1,168), Slovenia (890) and Lichtenstein (152), no lichen having ever been reported from Monaco. The number of poorly known taxa is quite high (604, 19.1% of the total), which indicates that, in spite of the Alps being one of the lichenologically most studied mountain systems worldwide, much work is still needed to reach a satisfactory picture of their real lichen diversity. Thirteen new combinations are proposed in the genera Agonimia , Aspicilia , Bagliettoa , Bellemerea , Carbonea , Lepra , Miriquidica , Polysporina , Protothelenella , Pseudosagedia and Thelidium .
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.007 |
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".