New and little-known marine species of <i>Pinaciophora</i>, <i>Rabdiaster</i> and <i>Thomseniophora</i> gen. nov. (Rotosphaerida: Pompholyxophryidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Near-shore benthic sediment samples collected at low tide from the western Atlantic Ocean (Sable Island, Nova Scotia, Canada) and the eastern Pacific Ocean (Haida Gwaii (Queen Charlotte Islands), British Columbia, Canada) were searched for little-known species of the rhizarian (Cercozoa) genera Pinaciophora, Rabdiaster and other related rotosphaerids. Several representatives with complete investitures of silica-scales (the structure of which is taxonomically diagnostic) were studied by transmission and scanning electron microscopy. The validity of the genus Pinaciophora (sensu Penard, 1904) as defined by a single type of plate-scale only, was strengthened by the discovery of Pinaciophora rubicunda and of another previously undescribed entity, both of which lacked spine-scales. Several earlier reports of loose scales from marine habitats, and erroneously identified as the freshwater P. fluviatilis, might be assigned to P. marina sp. nov. The new genus Thomseniophora was erected to include all ‘Pinaciophora' previously known to produce spine-scales and seven new taxa were described. Six other little-known species of Thomseniophora, Pinaciophora and Rabdiaster were described from the Canadian west coast (Pacific Ocean) including one new species of Pinaciophora. The addition of Thomseniophora brings the number of genera assigned to the Rotosphaerida to six: Pinaciophora, Thomseniophora, Rabdiaster, Rabdiophrys and Pompholyxophrys. The presence of several apparently closely related taxa in the same collection (same location and sampling date) strengthens the conclusion that relatively small differences in the morphology of their siliceous scales were more likely caused by genetic differences than by environmental influences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".