DEFINING THE MAJOR LINEAGES OF RED ALGAE (RHODOPHYTA)<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous phylogenetic studies of the Rhodophyta have provided a framework for understanding red algal phylogeny, but there still exists the need for a comprehensive analysis using a broad sampling of taxa and sufficient phylogenetic information to clearly define the major lineages. In this study, we determined 48 sequences of the PSI P700 chl a apoprotein A1 (psaA) and rbcL coding regions and established a robust red algal phylogeny to identify the major clades. The tree included most of the lineages of the Bangiophyceae (25 genera, 48 taxa). Seven well‐supported lineages were identified with this analysis with the Cyanidiales having the earliest divergence and being distinct from the remaining taxa; i.e. the Porphyridiales 1–3, Bangiales, Florideophyceae, and Compsopogonales. We also analyzed data sets with fewer taxa but using seven proteins or the DNA sequence from nine genes to resolve inter‐clade relationships. Based on all of these analyses, we propose that the Rhodophyta contains two new subphyla, the Cyanidiophytina with a single class, the Cyanidiophyceae, and the Rhodophytina with six classes, the Bangiophyceae, Compsopogonophyceae, Florideophyceae, Porphyridiophyceae classis nov. (which contains Porphyridium, Flintiella, and Erythrolobus), Rhodellophyceae, and Stylonematophyceae classis nov. (which contains Stylonema, Bangiopsis, Chroodactylon, Chroothece, Purpureofilum, Rhodosorus, Rhodospora, and Rufusia). We also describe a new order, Rhodellales, and a new family, Rhodellaceae (with Rhodella, Dixoniella, and Glaucosphaera).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".