How Oxymonads Lost Their Groove: An Ultrastructural Comparison of Monocercomonoides and Excavate Taxa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite being amongst the more familiar groups of heterotrophic flagellates, the evolutionary affinities of oxymonads remain poorly understood. A re-interpretation of the cytoskeleton of the oxymonad Monocercomonoides hausmanni suggests that this organism has a similar ultrastructural organisation to members of the informal assemblage 'excavate taxa'. The preaxostyle, 'R1' root, and 'R2' root of M. hausmanni are proposed to be homologous to the right, left, and anterior roots respectively of excavate taxa. The 'paracrystalline' portion of the preaxostyle, previously treated as unique to oxymonads, is proposed to be homologous to the I fibre of excavate taxa. Other non-microtubular fibres are identified that have both positional and substructural similarity to the distinctive B and C fibres of excavate taxa. A homologue to the 'singlet root', otherwise distinctive for excavate taxa, is also proposed. The preaxostyle and C fibre homologue in Monocercomonoides are most similar to the homologous structures in Trimastix. suggesting a particularly close relationship. This supports and extends recent molecular phylogenetic findings that Trimastix and oxymonads form a clade. We conclude that oxymonads have an excavate ancestry, and that the 'excavate taxa' sensu stricto form a paraphyletic assemblage.
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) | 0.001 | 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".