Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on sooty mould names based on species mixtures: <i>Hormiscium handelii</i> and <i>Torula lechleriana</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sooty moulds often grow in colonies of more than one species, and taxonomic descriptions thus often unknowingly combine elements of different fungi. The species composition of such mixtures can be clarified by microscopic examination of undisturbed colonies removed from the substrate using the collodion technique. This method facilitates analysis of hyphal morphologies and the associations of different synanamorphs with these hyphae, i.e., the recognition of character suites that correlate with sooty mould families. Earlier versions of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature allowed a name based on a mixture to be designated a nomen confusum, but since 1978 the Code has required selection of one species or one morph to serve as the lectotype for the name. Two binomials are revised here, with the component parts of their holotypes characterized and compared with their protologues. The type specimen of Hormiscium handelii is dominated by monilioid hyphae of a member of the Metacapnodiaceae with a hyphomycetous Capnophialophora anamorph; this latter morph is selected as the lectotype. No new combination is made because no spores were observed, so that it is impossible to adequately characterize the fungal species represented by this morph. The type of Torula lechleriana comprises three species, but it is dominated by the characteristic monilioid hyphae of a member of the Metacapnodiaceae, with Capnobotrys conidiogenous cells and conidia. The latter anamorphic fungus is chosen as the lectotype, and a taxonomic description is provided for the resulting new combination, Capnobotrys lechleriana.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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".