Species in section Peltidea (aphthosa group) of the genus Peltigera remain cryptic after molecular phylogenetic revision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Closely related lichen-forming fungal species circumscribed using phenotypic traits (morphospecies) do not always align well with phylogenetic inferences based on molecular data. Using multilocus data obtained from a worldwide sampling, we inferred phylogenetic relationships among five currently accepted morphospecies ofPeltigerasectionPeltidea(P. aphthosagroup). Monophyletic circumscription of all currently recognized morphospecies (P. britannica, P. chionophila, P. frippiiandP. malacea) exceptP. aphthosa, which containedP. britannica, was confirmed with high bootstrap support. Following their re-delimitation using bGMYC and Structurama, BPP validated 14 putative species including nine previously unrecognized potential species (five withinP. malacea, five withinP. aphthosa, and two withinP. britannica). Because none of the undescribed potential species are corroborated morphologically, chemically, geographically or ecologically, we concluded that these monophyletic entities represent intraspecific phylogenetic structure, and, therefore, should not be recognized as new species. Cyanobionts associated withPeltideamycobionts (51 individuals) represented 22 uniquerbcLXhaplotypes from five phylogroups in Clade II subclades 2 and 3. With rare exceptions,Nostoctaxa involved in trimembered and bimembered associations are phylogenetically closely related (subclade 2) or identical, suggesting a mostly shared cyanobiont pool with infrequent switches. Based on a broad geographical sampling, we confirm a high specificity ofNostocsubclade 2 with their mycobionts, including a mutualistically exclusive association between phylogroup III and specific lineages ofP. malacea.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".