Unraveling the<i>Asteromenia peltata</i>species complex with clarification of the genera<i>Halichrysis</i>and<i>Drouetia</i>(Rhodymeniaceae, Rhodophyta)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The senior author was fortunate in 1996 to dive on the remote Houtman Abrolhos Islands of Western Australia and view in situ the stunning “ Asteromenia peltata ” that is so strikingly illustrated by John Huisman (viewable on AlgaeBase). Five years later, during excursions to Bermuda and Lord Howe Island (tropical eastern Australia), he observed and collected specimens referable to this species in both these localities. Based on their respective appearances in the field, it seemed unlikely that these entities from geographically remote regions represented the same species. Our molecular results not only confirm this suspicion, but further indicate that A. peltata sensu lato constitutes a complex of at least five distinct species. We restrict A. peltata to one of two species found in the western (sub)tropical North Atlantic, the second described herein as A. bermudensis sp. nov. Samples from Western Australia represent an undescribed species, A. exanimans sp. nov., while two entities collected from Lord Howe Island (A. anastomosans (Weber-van Bosse) comb. nov. and A. pseudocoalescens sp. nov.) conform to records variously reported as Asteromenia peltata and Drouetia coalescens . Specimens of D. coalescens from South Africa are also not representative of the genus Drouetia , but form a novel lineage within the Rhodymeniaceae. We included two species of Halichrysis in our molecular analyses and, in combination with observations of salient anatomical features, provide arguments for maintaining Asteromenia, Drouetia, and Halichrysis as distinct genera.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".