The morphology, taxonomy, and molecular phylogeny of <i>Heterocladia</i> and <i>Trigenea</i> (rhodomelaceae, rhodophyta), with delineation of the little‐known tribe Heterocladieae<sup>*</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A morphological, anatomical, and molecular study of the two genera ( Heterocladia and Trigenea ) and three species of the tribe Heterocladieae (Rhodomelaceae, Ceramiales) is presented. First collections of male and female gametophytes of Heterocladia australis Decaisne and Trigenea umbellata J. Agardh and of tetrasporophytes of the type species of Trigenea, T. australis Sonder, have allowed a much clearer assessment of these taxa from a classical morphological standpoint. Reproductive and vegetative characters of the two Trigenea species are shown to be virtually identical to those of Heterocladia , which differs from Trigenea principally in having both flattened and terete lateral branches, as opposed to exclusively terete axes throughout. As a consequence, we propose to transfer the Trigenea species to the earlier‐named genus Heterocladia as H. caudata L. Phillips, H.‐G. Choi, G.W. Saunders et Kraft, nom. nov. and H. umbellata ( J. Agardh) L. Phillips, H.‐G. Choi, G.W. Saunders et Kraft, comb. nov. The close relationship of the three species is supported by molecular data, as nucleotide sequences of the 18S rRNA gene from each are nearly identical. The same sequences from species of eight other rhodomelaceous genera plus those from five outgroup taxa are analyzed to provide grounds for preliminary phylogenetic inferences about the position of the Heterocladieae in the Rhodomelaceae. Both the Heterocladieae and the Rhodomelaceae are monophyletic taxa in our analyses, the Heterocladieae grouping weakly with the Bostrychieae and the problematic Australian endemic genus Sonderella , the latter yet to be assigned to a tribe. Representatives of groups with which Heterocladia has been associated previously, such as the Lophothalieae and Brongniartelleae, appear to be only distantly related, although many more taxa need to be analyzed before the systematic position of the genus becomes clear.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".