Descriptions and Phylogenetic Systematics of <i>Myxobolus</i> spp. from Cyprinids in Algonquin Park, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eight species of Myxobolus were collected from four species of cyprinids in Algonquin Park, Ontario. On the basis of spore morphology, five of these species are described as new and two are redescribed. The evolutionary relationships among these eight species were studied using partial small subunit ribosomal DNA (ssu-rDNA) sequence data. The resulting cladograms, which were highly resolved and with strongly supported relationships, allowed for the evaluation of spore morphology, host specificity, and tissue tropism, criteria traditionally used in species identification. These criteria, recently criticized for creating artificial rather than natural taxonomic groupings, were evaluated for their reliability in the systematics of the species examined. The data showed that distantly related species often infect the same host and tissue, and that closely related species often occur in different hosts. Morphologically similar species are more closely related to each other and the taxonomy based on spore morphology is consistent with the relationships depicted in the phylogenies. These results suggest that spore morphology is better than host specificity and tissue tropism as a species character, as well as for determining evolutionary relationships among the species of Myxobolus examined.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".