MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1857240900 · doi:10.1139/z10-105

Taxonomy of Farrea (Porifera, Hexactinellida, Hexactinosida) from the southwestern Atlantic, with description of a new species and a discussion on the recognition of subspecies in Porifera

2011· article· en· W1857240900 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Daniela A. Lopes, Eduardo Hajdu, Henry M. Reiswig

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMarine Sponges and Natural Products
Canadian institutionsRoyal British Columbia Museum
FundersFundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de JaneiroUniversidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorSmithsonian Institution
KeywordsSubspeciesBiologyTaxonomy (biology)ZoologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study reports three species of Farrea Bowerbank, 1862 from Campos Basin (southwestern Atlantic): Farrea herdendorfi Duplessis and Reiswig, 2004, Farrea occa Bowerbank, 1862, and Farrea campossinus sp. nov. This is the first record of F. herdendorfi for the South Atlantic and only the second record of the species worldwide. Farrea occa is described and reported to form mass occurrences in the area’s sponge and coral banks, as seen in extensive video recording undertaken between 900 and 1100 m depth. The new species approaches Farrea foliascens Topsent, 1906 very closely, but differs in that its hooked anchorate clavules are much larger and the meshes of its dictyonal framework rather more irregular. Our thoughts on whether the proposed new species deserved species or subspecies rank led to an investigation on the usage of subspecies rank in Porifera. A historical overview, mainly contrasting Demospongiae and Hexactinellida is offered here. We concluded that no rule of thumb is readily made out from the comparative analysis of various authors’ taxonomic decisions. Until one such agreement is achieved, it appears to us that naming new subspecies should be objectively argued for, or better, totally avoided, as a useless further dimension to taxonomic uncertainty in poriferan classification.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.144 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicMarine Sponges and Natural ProductsFrench-language works237,207