Phylogenetic comparison of spicule networks in cryptobranchiate dorid nudibranchs (Gastropoda, Euthyneura, Nudibranchia, Doridina)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many dorid nudibranchs possess large numbers of calcareous spicules in their mantle, gill, rhinophores and foot. However, the arrangements of these structures and their differences among taxa are poorly known. Spicule networks were stained with Alizarin red and compared among 12 species of cryptobranchiate dorid nudibranchs and four outgroups. Three general types of networks were found: a cobweb‐like, unbraced framework of one or few spicules per side; a ramifying system of thick, spiculated tracts; and a lattice‐like arrangement of distinct radial and circumferential tracts. The Discodorididae species investigated shared a cobweb‐like network and papillae supported by a ring of spicules, while the Porostomata showed consistent characters leading to a lattice‐like network with larger spicules in the central notum. The Dorididae studied were not cohesive, but each species shared characters with the aforementioned groups. Therefore, spicule network form may provide new characters to help resolve the phylogeny of Doridina.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".