<i>LESSARDIA ELONGATA</i> GEN. ET SP. NOV. (DINOFLAGELLATA, PERIDINIALES, PODOLAMPACEAE) AND THE TAXONOMIC POSITION OF THE GENUS <i>ROSCOFFIA</i><sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate an organism that closely resembles the nonphotosynthetic dinoflagellate “Gymnodinium elongatum” Hope 1954 using EM and molecular methods. Cells are 20–35 μm long, 10 μm wide, biconical, transparent, and have a faint broad girdle. Thecal plates are thin but present (plate formula Po Pi CP 3′ 1–2A 5″ 3C 6S 4‴ 3″″). With the exception of one feature, the presence of three antapical plates, the amphiesmal arrangement of this species is consistent with that of the order Peridiniales, family Podolampaceae; it is not at all consistent with the characteristics of the genus Gymnodinium. On the basis of these ultrastructural findings, we establish a new genus, Lessardia, and a new species, Lessardia elongata Saldarriaga et Taylor. Molecular phylogenetic analyses were performed using the small subunit rRNA genes of L. elongata as well as Roscoffia capitata, a member of a genus of uncertain systematic position that has been postulated to be related to the Podolampaceae. These analyses place Lessardia and Roscoffia as sister lineages within the so‐called GPP complex. Thecal plate arrangements led us to expand the family Podolampaceae to include the genus Lessardia and, in combination with new molecular results, to propose a close relationship between the Podolampaceae and Roscoffia. Within this lineage, Lessardia and Roscoffia appear to have retained a number of ancestral characters: Roscoffia still has a well‐developed cingulum, a feature absent in all members of the Podolampaceae, and Lessardia has more than one antapical plate, a character reminiscent of some members of the family Protoperidiniaceae.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".