A NEW LOOK AT AN ANCIENT ORDER: GENERIC REVISION OF THE BANGIALES (RHODOPHYTA)<sup>1</sup>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The red algal order Bangiales has been revised as a result of detailed regional studies and the development of expert local knowledge of Bangiales floras, followed by collaborative global analyses based on wide taxon sampling and molecular analyses. Combined analyses of the nuclear SSU rRNA gene and the plastid RUBISCO LSU (rbcL) gene for 157 Bangiales taxa have been conducted. Fifteen genera of Bangiales, seven filamentous and eight foliose, are recognized. This classification includes five newly described and two resurrected genera. This revision constitutes a major change in understanding relationships and evolution in this order. The genus Porphyra is now restricted to five described species and a number of undescribed species. Other foliose taxa previously placed in Porphyra are now recognized to belong to the genera Boreophyllum gen. nov., Clymene gen. nov., Fuscifolium gen. nov., Lysithea gen. nov., Miuraea gen. nov., Pyropia, and Wildemania. Four of the seven filamentous genera recognized in our analyses already have generic names (Bangia, Dione, Minerva, and Pseudobangia), and are all currently monotypic. The unnamed filamentous genera are clearly composed of multiple species, and few of these species have names. Further research is required: the genus to which the marine taxon Bangia fuscopurpurea belongs is not known, and there are also a large number of species previously described as Porphyra for which nuclear SSU ribosomal RNA (nrSSU) or rbcL sequence data should be obtained so that they can be assigned to the appropriate genus.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.010 | 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 it