Neohygrocybe ovinoides J. S. Cardoso 2023, comb. nov.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neohygrocybe ovinoides (Lodge, S.A. Cantrell & T.J. Baroni) J.S. Cardoso, comb. nov. MycoBank # MB844404 Basionym:— Hygrocybe ovinoides Lodge, S.A. Cantrell & T.J. Baroni, Mycological Research, 108(11): 1312 (2004) Type:— PUERTO RICO. Río Grande: Caribbean National Forest, Caimitillo trail, upper part, 730 m, 18º18’17”N, 65º47’20”W, 11 June 1997, on clay soil, T. J. Baroni (CFMR-PR 4547, holotype). Comments:—This taxon was first accommodated in Hygrocybe subgen. Pseudohygrocybe Bon sect. Neohygrocybe Herink (Cantrell & Lodge 2004). However, most species arranged under sect. Neohygrocybe by Cantrell & Lodge (2004) were recombined to genus Neohygrocybe after molecular analyses (Lodge et al. 2013). Resembling the European taxon Neohygrocybe ovina (Bull.) Herink (1958 [1959]: 72), this species lacks an odour, or red to brown staining reactions and has a characteristic whitish band in the pileus margin (Cantrell & Lodge 2004). The dark dull colours of the basidiomata, which is entirely greyish, the radially fibrillose pileus which is somewhat dry to moist, but not viscid, sinuate lamellae, fibrillose-silky stipe and the microscopic features, such as the ellipsoid basidiospores, basidia with modest clamp connections at the base (not the toruloid or medallion type), regular lamellar trama, presence of pseudocystidia emerging from the trama, presence of fuscous pigments in the pileipellis hyphae and presence of clamp connections throughout the basidiomata are sufficient to accommodate it under Neohygrocybe (Cantrell & Lodge 2004, Lodge et al. 2013). This taxon, due to the lack of staining reactions, would be better placed in sect. Tristes (Bataille) Lodge & Padamsee (Lodge et al. 2013).
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
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".