<i>Cladonia rubrotincta</i> , a new species distinct from <i>C. norvegica</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cladonia norvegica was originally described from Norway based on different morphological and chemical characters distinguishing the species from C. coniocraea. Shortly after its description, material containing red spots on the thallus was reported from different parts of the world, but the taxonomic status of this form remained unclear. In this study, we investigated the morphological, chemical and genetic differences between the spotless form of C. norvegica and the red-spotted material. Phylogenetic analyses of mycobiont DNA (ITS rDNA, mtSSU, EF-1α) revealed that red-spotted specimens form a well-supported monophyletic clade, distinct from the spotless form of C. norvegica. We therefore describe red-spotted material as a new species, C. rubrotincta , with the type from Norway and we genetically and morphologically confirm occurrences from Austria, Czechia, Estonia, Great Britain and western Canada. The identity of the red pigment was confirmed to be a rhodocladonic acid by HPLC and LC-HRMS. Specimens with red spots exhibit consistently smaller and more irregularly shaped podetia. Additionally, our analysis of photobionts indicated that both species share a similar pool of Asterochloris symbionts. This study underscores the importance of integrating molecular, chemical, and morphological data in lichen taxonomy and provides insights into the distribution and ecological preferences of C. rubrotincta and C. norvegica.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".