Linnaeus was right all along:<i>Ulva</i>and<i>Enteromorpha</i>are not distinct genera
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ulva, one of the first Linnaean genera, was later circumscribed to consist of green seaweeds with distromatic blades, and Enteromorpha Link was established for tubular forms. Although several lines of evidence suggest that these generic constructs are artificial, Ulva and Enteromorpha have been maintained as separate genera. Our aims were to determine phylogenetic relationships among taxa currently attributed to Ulva, Enteromorpha, Umbraulva Bae et I.K. Lee and the monotypic genus Chloropelta C.E. Tanner, and to make any nomenclatural changes justified by our findings. Analyses of nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer DNA (ITS nrONA) (29 ingroup taxa including the type species of Ulva and Enteromorphat, the chloroplast-encoded rbcL gene (for a subset of taxa) and a combined data set were carried out. All trees had a strongly supported clade consisting of all Ulva, Enteromorpha and Chloropelta species, but Ulva and Enteromorpha were not monophyletic. The recent removal of Vmbraulva olivascens (PJ.L. Dangeard) Bae et I.K. Lee from Ulvu is supported, although the relationship of the segregate genus Umhraulva to Ulvaria requires further investigation. These results, combined with earlier molecular and culture data, provide strong evidence that Ulva, Enteromorpha and Chloropelta are not distinct evolutionary entities and should not be recognized as separate genera. A comparison of traits for surveyed species revealed few synapomorphies. Because Ulva is the oldest name, Enteromorpha and Chloropclta are here reduced to synonymy with Ulva, and new combinations are made where necessary.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".