Molecular and morphological evidence indicates that <i>Pseudorhabdosynochus lantauensis</i> (Monogenea: Diplectanidae) represents two species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sequences of the first internal transcribed spacer (ITS-1) and the D1-D3 domains of the large subunit (LSU) of the ribosomal DNA (rDNA) were determined for multiple specimens of 4 operational taxonomic units (OTUs) of the monogenean, Pseudorhabdosynochus lantauensis. OTUs were defined based on their collecting localities, host and/or morphological characteristics. All P. lantauensis specimens of one group (OTUs 1 and 3) differed in their sequences of the ITS-1 and partial LSU rDNA when compared with specimens of a second group (OTUs 2 and 4) by 12% and 2%, respectively. Results of the phylogenetic analyses of the LSU rDNA sequence data showed total (100%) bootstrap support for the separation of P. lantauensis into 2 distinct clades. At least 11 of the 18 nucleotide differences in the LSU sequence between the two P. lantauensis clades were derived (i.e. autapomorphic) characters when the morphologically distinct species, P. epinepheli and P. coioidesis, were used as outgroups. Furthermore, there were several autapomorphic character states for each P. lantauensis clade. This provides sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis that P. lantauensis represents a single species. Morphological and morphometric differences between these two clades provided additional strong support for the separation of P. lantauensis into two species. These two parasite species were found to co-exist on one of the two species of serranid fish (i.e. Epinephelus coioides) examined in the South China Sea (Guangdong Province, China).
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".