Observations on <i>Fragilaria longifusiformis</i> comb. nov. et nom. nov. (Bacillariophyceae), a widespread planktic diatom documented from North America and Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Synedra planktonica was originally described by Hains and Sebring from a freshwater locality in the south‐eastern USA using light and transmission electron microscopy. The authors placed S. planktonica into the genus Synedra Ehrenberg because of its solitary habit and lack of marginal linking spines. Since the original description of S. planktonica, the concepts of Synedra and the related genus Fragilaria Lyngbye have undergone significant change and debate. Today, details of the areolae, apical pore fields, cingulum and rimoportulae, all lacking in the original description of S. planktonica, are now commonly used to distinguish between taxa in Fragilaria, Synedra and related genera. We provide details of these ultrastructural characters for S. planktonica based on specimens collected from the type locality, along with observations of cells from other sites in North America and Europe. Based on these findings, an emended description is presented for S. planktonica and the taxon is transferred to Fragilaria, as F. longifusiformis comb. nov. et nom. nov. According to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, the epithet planktonica could not be applied because it was previously used to describe a marine species of Fragilaria. We discuss the relationship of S. planktonica with morphologically similar taxa, including the genus Reimerothrix Prasad.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".