Linnaeus was right all along:<i>Ulva</i>and<i>Enteromorpha</i>are not distinct genera
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
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, Enteromorpl/(J, Umhraulva 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 nrDNA) (29 ingroup taxa including the type species of Ulm and Ellteromorpha), 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 Enteromorphu were not monophyletic.The recent removal of Umbraulva olivascens (PJ.L. Dangeard) Bae et I.K. Lee from Ulm is supported, although the relationship of the segregate genus Umhraulva to Uharia requires further investIgation.These results, combined with earlier molecular and culture data, provide strong evidence that Ulva, EllteromorpJIlI 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 Ch/oropefta 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.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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