<i>Lichenomphalia umbellifera</i>: fungible and infungible epithets and species concepts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparison of the protologue of Agaricus umbellifer L. with specimens and descriptions of the basidiolichen Lichenomphalia umbellifera (L.) Redhead & al. revealed that the epithet umbellifera was misapplied to the Lichenomphalia species, causing several major conflicts with Linnaeus's species concept. A felicitous match for Linnaeus's species concept was found with a species of Marasmius sect. Epiphylli . Because A. umbellifer falls in a group that arises from an evolutionary pathway divergent from that leading to Marasmius s. str., we erected a new genus, Owingsia , to accommodate it, and recombined the type species as Owingsia umbellifera . Molecular studies demonstrated that it is a widely distributed circumpolar species, prevalent in Lapland and islands of the Baltic Sea, where Linnaeus encountered it. The earliest legitimate description of the basidiolichen L. umbellifera is A. pseudoandrosaceus Bull., a name superseded by the sanctioned later synonym, A. ericetorum Pers. We recombined this basionym as L. ericetorum , and epitypified O. umbellifera and L. ericetorum with modern sequenced specimens.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".