Phylogenetic relationships of<i>Polysiphonia</i>(Rhodomelaceae, Rhodophyta) and its relatives based on anatomical and nuclear small-subunit rDNA sequence data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to reassess monophyly of the genus Polysiphonia and determine the phylogenetic affinities of its component lineages among related red algae belonging to the Rhodomelaceae. Our "total evidence" approach, combining 28 anatomical characters and small-subunit ribosomal DNA sequence data for 25 ceramialean algae including 14 species of Polysiphonia sensu lato (including two species of the recently described genus Neosiphonia) and nine related Rhodomelaceae, indicates that Polysiphonia sensu lato consists of three strongly supported clades, Polysiphonia group, Neosiphonia group, and a "multipericentral" group, and a single taxon lineage consisting of Womersleyella setacea. The type species of the genus, Polysiphonia urceolata (= Polysiphonia stricta) from the north Atlantic, formed a distinct clade with Polysiphonia morrowii and Polysiphonia pacifica from the northwest and northeast Pacific, respectively. The Neosiphonia group included Neosiphonia japonica and Neosiphonia savatieri from the northwest Pacific, as originally proposed, Polysiphonia harveyi from the north Atlantic, which shares diagnostic features with this genus, and the anomalous Polysiphonia elongata and Polysiphonia virgata from the north Atlantic and South Africa, respectively. Boergeseniella and Vertebrata from the north Atlantic and Enelittosiphonia from the northwest Pacific associated solidly with the multipericentral Polysiphonia fucoides and Polysiphonia nigra from the north Atlantic. The implications for the taxonomy of Polysiphonia sensu lato and related genera within the Rhodomelaceae are discussed.Key words: Neosiphonia, nuclear small-subunit rDNA, phylogeny, Polysiphonia, Rhodomelaceae, Rhodophyta, systematics.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".