Bibliographic record
Abstract
Juncus tweedyi Rydberg (1900: 90). Lectotype (designated here): — U.S.A. Yellowstone Nat. Park, 1884, F. Tweedy 223 (US!01014093 (specimen on left side of sheet), image available at http://n 2t.net/ark:/65665/m36ba492d8-ad74-40fb-a425-87f165d9c396) = Juncus canadensis var. brevicaudatus Engelmann (1866: 436) = Juncus brevicaudatus (Engelmann) Fernald (1904: 35) Lectotype (here designated): — U.S.A., Massachusetts, Houghtons Pond, Milton, 8 September 1853, W. Boot GH [00339972]. = Juncus canadensis var. coarctatus Engelmann (1867: 544); = Juncus coarctatus (Engelmann) Buchenau (1906: 160). = Juncus canadensis var. kuntzei Buchenau (1890: 272). Lectotype (here designated): — U.S.A., Utah, “Die var. Kuntzeiwurde von Dr. O. Kuntze an der Pacificbahnbei Corinne in einer Hoehe Type von ca. 7000 FuBgefunden”: NY! [NY247586]. Notes:—The holotype of Juncus tweedyi was cited as being at NY by Kirschner (2002) but searches for this specimen have not been successful. The general collections of Juncus at NY contain a folder for J. tweedyi that states “see type collection”, however only an empty folder in the type collections of NY in the correct alphabetic range was found. No digital record or image exists for this type. It is possible that the specimen has been misfiled or lost. A specimen annotated by Tiehm in 1984 as the holotype of Juncus tweedyi at YU is not correct. This specimen, Tweedy 225, is cited by Rydberg (1900) as J. nevadensis and the type of J. tweedyi is Tweedy 223. The only specimen we have found that matches Rydberg’s cited collection number is at US. This specimen cannot be the holotype as its label lacks the original annotation by Rydberg. Given that no other specimen of Tweedy 223 has been found, we here lectotypify the name J. tweedyi with the US specimen. The typification of J. brevicaudatus is complex. Kirschner (2002) cited the following: Juncus canadensis var. brevicaudatus Engelmann, Trans.Acad. Sci. St. Louis 2: 436 (1866); J.canadensis var. coarctatus Engelmann, in A.Gray, Manual, ed. 5, 544 (1867) and Engelmann, Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis 2: 474 (1868); J. coarctatus (Engelmann) Buchenau, in H.G.A. Engler, Pflanzenr. (iv.) 36: 160 (1906). T: Ontario: Isle of St. Ignace, Lake Superior, 9 Aug 1866, O.B. Wheeler [G. Engelmann, Herb. Junc. Bor.- Amer. Norm.] 76; lecto, MO; designated here by S.E. Clemants; isolecto: NY, PR. This above typification is incorrect. Although Engelmann (1866) did not provide a description or diagnosis for his varietal name Juncus canadensis var. brevicaudatus, he did refer to a description. Engelmann’s treatment shows “[var.] a. brevicaudatus (J. acuminatus, Gray)”. In other words, it is evident that Engelmann (1866) considered Gray’s (1859) treatment of “ J. acuminatus Michx. ” as a misapplication and cited “ J. acuminatus sensu A. Gray (1859, non Michx., 1803)” as a synonym; he thus referred to Gray’s description. It is emphasized here that the basis for the validity of the varietal name J. canadensis var. brevicaudatus is Engelmann’s reference to Gray’s description of “ J. acuminatus ”. As per the Shenzhen Code Art.7.8., “A name of a new taxon validly published solely by reference to a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis (Art. 38.1(a)) … is to be typified by an element selected from the entire context of the validating description or diagnosis …”. Therefore, the varietal name J. canadensis var. brevicaudatus must be typified by an element selected from Gray’s (1859: 480) treatment of “ J. acuminatus ”. Gray, however, merely provided distributional range as “Mountains, Maine, W. Massachusetts, N. New York and northward”; he did not cite any collection. Nevertheless, pre-1859 collection(s) from any of the preceding areas, housed at GH and identifiable as J. canadensis var. brevicaudatus, is eligible for the typification of this varietal name.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".