PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG LINEAGES OF THE CERAMIACEAE (CERAMIALES, RHODOPHYTA) BASED ON NUCLEAR SMALL SUBUNIT rDNA SEQUENCE DATA<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phylogenetic relationships among 69 species of the Ceramiales (51 Ceramiaceae, six Dasyaceae, seven Delesseriaceae, and five Rhodomelaceae) were determined based on nuclear SSU rDNA sequence data. We resolved five strongly supported but divergent lineages among the included Ceramiaceae: (i) the genus Inkyuleea, which weakly joins other orders of the Rhodymeniophycidae rather than the Ceramiales in our analyses; (ii) the tribe Spyridieae, which is sister to the remainder of the included ceramialean taxa; (iii) the subfamily Ceramioideae, weakly including the tribe Warrenieae; (iv) the subfamily Callithamnioideae; and (v) the subfamily Compsothamnioideae, which emerges as sister to the Dasyaceae/Delesseriaceae/Rhodomelaceae complex, thus rendering the Ceramiaceae sensu lato unequivocally paraphyletic, as has been argued separately on anatomical grounds by Kylin and Hommersand. Our data support a restricted concept of the Ceramiaceae that includes only one of the five lineages (Ceramioideae) that we have resolved. In addition to failing to ally with the Ceramiales in our molecular analyses, species of Inkyuleea differ substantially from other Ceramiaceae sensu lato in details of pre- and postfertilization development. The genus Inkyuleea is here assigned to the Inkyuleeaceae fam. nov., which we provisionally retain in the Ceramiales. Species of Spyridia also differ from the remaining Ceramiaceae in their postfertilization development, and, in light of our molecular data, the genus Spyridia is assigned to the Spyridiaceae. The Callithamnioideae is strongly monophyletic (100% in all analyses), which, in combination with key anatomical differences, supports elevation to family status for this lineage as the Callithamniaceae. Similarly, the Compsothamnioideae is solidly monophyletic in our molecular trees and has a unique suite of defining anatomical characters that supports family status for a complex that we consider to include the tribes Compsothamnieae, Dasyphileae, Griffithsieae, Monosporeae, Ptiloteae, Spermothamnieae, Sphondylothamnieae, Spongoclonieae, and Wrangelieae, for which the reinstated family name Wrangeliaceae is available.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".