PHYLOGENY OF THE DUMONTIACEAE (GIGARTINALES, RHODOPHYTA) AND ASSOCIATED FAMILIES BASED ON SSU rDNA AND INTERNAL TRANSCRIBED SPACER SEQUENCE DATA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Small subunit (SSU) rDNA was sequenced for 25 species in 19 genera of the Gigartinales (Rhodophyta). As well, the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region was sequenced, and a data matrix of 36 morphological characters was constructed for 16 species of Dumontiaceae. Phylogenetic trees were calculated from a multiple alignment of the SSU sequence data to infer relationships between species of Dumontiaceae and other gigartinalean taxa. The SSU analysis produced a polyphyletic Dumontiaceae. Notably, Acrosymphyton failed to associate with the included Gigartinales, let alone the Dumontiaceae, supporting an earlier proposal to remove it to a new family. The analyses were equivocal about the phylogenetic affinities of Dudresnaya, which clustered with the Kallymeniaceae, and the affinities of the Indo‐West Pacific Gibsmithia, Kraftia, and Dasyphloea, the last‐mentioned clustering with the Antarctic Gainiaceae, and these four taxa with Portieria (Rhizophyllidaceae). Further investigations are necessary to resolve relationships among these taxa. Rhodopeltis, a genus recently moved to the Dumontiaceae from the Polyideaceae, showed a weak association with the remaining northern Dumontiaceae. The final group consisted of cold‐temperate Northern Hemisphere species. Phylogenetic analyses using a combination of SSU, ITS, and morphological data within this clade produced two strongly supported clades, a Dilsea/Neodilsea clade and a Cryptosiphonia/Dumontia clade. Dilsea is derived from a paraphyletic Neodilsea and may itself be polyphyletic. Atlantic and Pacific isolates of Dumontia contorta clearly showed sufficient divergence to warrant recognition as distinct species, and Dumontia alaskana, sp. nov. is proposed for the Pacific species.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".