A MULTI‐GENE MOLECULAR INVESTIGATION OF THE KELP (LAMINARIALES, PHAEOPHYCEAE) SUPPORTS SUBSTANTIAL TAXONOMIC RE‐ORGANIZATION<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every year numerous ecological, biochemical, and physiological studies are performed using members of the order Laminariales. Despite the fact that kelp are some of the most intensely studied macroalgae in the world, there is significant debate over the classification within and among the three “derived” families, the Alariaceae, Laminariaceae, and Lessoniaceae (ALL). Molecular phylogenies published for the ALL families have generated hypotheses strongly at odds with the current morphological taxonomy; however, conflicting phylogenetic hypotheses and consistently low levels of support realized in all of these studies have resulted in conservative approaches to taxonomic revisions. In order to resolve relationships within this group we have sequenced over 6000 bp from regions in the nuclear, chloroplast, and mitochondrial genomes and included 42 taxa in Bayesian, neighbor‐joining, and parsimony analyses. The result is the first comprehensive and well‐supported molecular phylogeny for the ALL complex of the Laminariales. We maintain the three recognized families (Alariaceae, Laminariaceae, and Lessoniaceae), but with vastly different compositions, as well as propose the Costariaceae fam. nov. for Agarum , Costaria , Dictyoneurum , and Thalassiophyllum , the only genera in the Laminariales with flattened, occasionally terete, stipes and either a perforate or reticulate blade. In addition, our data strongly support a split of the genus Laminaria . We resurrect the genus Saccharina Stackhouse for the Laminaria clade that does not contain L. digitata (Hudson) J.V. Lamouroux, the type of the genus.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".