Bibliographic record
Abstract
15. Licea minima Fr., Syst. mycol. 3(1): 199 (1829) Figs. 12A–K Neotypus (designated here, see below) Sporophores sporocarpic, scattered or in small groups, sessile. Sporocarps subglobose, 0.2–0.5 mm, to subhemisphaeric or elongated, 2–3 mm long blackish brown. Peridium double, outer layer cartilaginous, dark brown, opaque, inner layer membranous with an inner surface ornamented with warts; dehiscence into platelets following the shiny raised lines of dehiscence, down to the base of the sporocarps, platelet margins ornamented with large outgrowths clearly visible by TL. Spores free, red brown in mass, olivaceous to lilac brown by TL, thick walled, thinner and paler on one side, globose, 10–13 µm diam., warted. By SEM the inner peridium is granular, sometimes fusing in an irregular reticulum of granules the platelet margins ornamented in a range of outgrowths from simple rounded warts to finger-like warts 1–2 µm long; the epispore is pilate. Material examined: Neotype (designated here). SPAIN: Guadalajara, Almiruete, 30TVL8243, 1000 m, en tronco de Pinus sp., 28-VI-1989, leg. C. Lado & F. Pando, 3589 Lado, MA-Fungi 23775!. Mycobank: MBT 10016507. SPAIN. Navarra, Articutza, 30TWN 9788, 660 m, en madera descompuesta de Abies excelsa, 12-XI-1983, leg. R. Galán, 1548 Lado, MA-Fungi 17214. Habitat: on bark of living and dead trees, on decaying trunks and stumps of angiosperms and gymnosperms, on old polypore. Distribution: Largely distributed (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Poland, Belarus, Russian Federation, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Andorra, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Austria, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Chine, India, Nepal, Vietnam, Seychelles Islands, Japan, Morocco, Madagascar, Canada, USA, Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand. Icon.: Lister (1925: pl. 148d–f), Nannenga-Bremekamp (1965: 136: Figs. 4 A – B; 1975: 63, 1991: 42), Martin & Alexopoulos (1969: 480, Pl. I: 8a–c), Gilert (1996: 521, Figs. 17 –25; 522, Figs. 26–29), Neubert et al. (1993: 151, 283, Fig. VI: 2), Lado & Pando (1997: 120, Figs. 31a–b), Yamamoto (1998: 132, Figs. A – B; 2021: 145, Figs. A – C), Novozhilov et al. (1999: 85, Figs. 4 A – D), Härkönen & Sivonen (2011: 54, Figs. 67–69), Poulain et al. (2011: 68), Härkönen & Varis (2012: 148, Figs. 218–220), Ronikier et al. (2017: 250, Figs. 2 A – E), Lloyd (2020: 26). Notes. Licea minima was described almost 200 years ago by Fries (1829). In the original description no precise collection was given as the type, as was the custom then. We tried to find original Fries material at the UPS herbarium, where his collection is preserved, but the curator said there was no original material kept there (Asa Kruys pers. comm.) and commented that Fries wrote v.v. (vidi vivam) meaning that material was not collected or preserved. Since no original material, neither specimens nor illustrations, exists, we have selected a typical specimen of Licea minima from MA-Fungi and neotypify it here. The SEM image of the spore (Fig. 12 J) shows the ornamentation on the epispore as T-shaped pila. A similar observation was made by Gilert (1996) who commented on T shaped rods by TEM. This species is similar to L. pusilla Schrad. from which it differs by its reddish-brown spores and peridium, and its smaller spores. Licea mariae Bortnikov also has larger spores, than L. minima and they are smooth and almost colourless (Fig. 11 H).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.034 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".