SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION OF THE GENUS <i>HILDENBRANDIA</i> (RHODOPHYTA): A SYNTHESIS OF TECHNIQUES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evolutionary relationships among members of the red algal genus Hildenbrandia have not been well understood for several reasons. For example, the genus contains both marine and freshwater representatives, all of which are non‐calcified and crustose, and few have definitive morphological characters for classification. Hildenbrandia is also assumed to be completely asexual (reproduction by tetrasporangia in marine forms and by gemmae in freshwater populations), and characters of the female gametangial system and post‐fertilization structures are not available for comparative studies. Currently there are 14 marine and five freshwater species and infraspecific taxa recognized within the genus. We used phylogenetic analyses (parsimony, distance and maximum likelihood) of DNA sequences of commonly employed genes (rbcL and 18S rRNA) to examine the evolutionary relationships among representatives of many of these taxa. In addition, we employed morphometrics (principal co‐ordinates and cluster analyses) of several measured characters of these same representatives, as well as all available type specimens, to determine the number of morphologically‐delimited entities within the genus. Thus far our results indicate that some characters traditionally used to distinguish species of Hildenbrandia, such as tetrasporangial division pattern, may not be useful in some cases, and a revision of the taxonomy of the genus will be necessary. Although the marine and freshwater species of Hildenbrandia appear to be well separated in our molecular analyses of European specimens, this trend was not observed for North American specimens. High sequence divergence values were calculated for both the rbcL and 18S rRNA genes of Hildenbrandia, compared to other red algal genera.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".