MOLECULAR SYSTEMATICS OF THE FLORIDEOPHYCEAE (RHODOPHYTA) USING NUCLEAR LARGE AND SMALL SUBUNIT rDNA SEQUENCE DATA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sequence data are presented for approximately 85% of the nuclear large subunit (LSU) rDNA gene for one member of the Bangiophyceae and 47 members of the Florideophyceae, the latter representing all but one of the currently recognized florideophyte orders. Distance, parsimony, and maximum likelihood analyses of these data were used to generate phylogenetic trees, and bootstrap resampling was implemented to infer robustness for distance and parsimony results. LSU phylogenies were congruent with published nuclear small subunit (SSU) rDNA results in that four higher level florideophyte lineages were resolved: lineage 1, containing the order Hildenbrandiales; lineage 2, recovered only under distance analysis, composed of the orders Acrochaetiales, Balliales, Batrachospermales, Corallinales, Nemaliales, Palmariales, and Rhodogorgonales; lineage 3, containing the Ahnfeltiales; and lineage 4, composed of the orders Bonnemaisoniales, Ceramiales, Gelidiales, Gigartinales, Gracilariales, Halymeniales, Plocamiales, and Rhodymeniales. Analyses were also performed on a combined LSU–SSU data set and an SSU‐only data set to account for differences in taxon sampling relative to published studies using this latter gene. Combined LSU–SSU analyses resulted in phylogenetic trees of similar topology and support to those obtained from LSU‐only analyses. Phylogenetic trees produced from SSU‐only analyses differed somewhat in particulars of branching within lineages 2 and 4 but overall were congruent with the LSU‐only and combined LSU–SSU results. We close with a discussion of the phylogenetic potential that the LSU has displayed thus far for resolving relationships within the Florideophyceae.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".