Rediscovery of the originally designated “type specimens” of Isoetes sahyadrii (Isoetaceae—Lycopodiopsida) and its nomenclatural implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Isoetes sahyadrii was described from a T.S. Mahabale specimen at the same site in southern India from which I. dixitii and I. panchganiensis were subsequently typified. Mahabale indicated that his “type specimens” were deposited in the Gujarat College, Ahmadabad herbarium. The later disappearance of that type material and destruction of the type locality, however, combined with an ambiguous protologue to render I. sahyadrii an unresolved taxon in subsequent Isoetes enumerations. The recent rediscovery of Mahabale’s designated type material at Gujarat College, Ahmadabad has permitted reconsideration of I. sahyadrii in the context of subsequent taxonomic decisions. This study confirms earlier suggestions that I. sahyadrii was erroneously based on a mixture of I. dixitii and I. panchganiensis plants. We conclude that the name I. sahyadrii should have been recognized as having a type representing two different species and, under Art. 9.14, most appropriately to have employed the name for I. dixitii. Intervening lectotypification efforts conducted without the benefit of Mahabale’s designated type specimen, however, resulted first in epitypification of I. sahyadrii with the type of I. panchananii, then with a conserved type, that of I. panchganiensis. Both latter species exhibit morphological characteristics contrary to the predominant elements evident in Mahabale’s recently rediscovered specimen and his published protologue. The successful 2022 proposal to conserve that nomenclature, however, makes further nomenclatural clarification very difficult. Accordingly, we accept the current application of the name to the species previously known as I. panchganiensis.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".