Molecular Phylogeny of Three Oxymonad Genera: <i>Pyrsonympha, Dinenympha</i> and <i>Oxymonas</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oxymonads are a morphologically well-characterized and highly diverse lineage of protists. They are, however, under sampled at a molecular level. It has recently been demonstrated that a genus of oxymonads, Pyrsonympha, is phylogenetically related to the excavate taxon Trimastix. Here, we addressed issues of internal oxymonad evolution. Pyrsonympha and Dinenympha are shown, by fluorescent in situ hybridization and phylogenetic evidence, to be separate genera and not morphotypes of the same organism. We demonstrated that three genera of oxymonads, Dinenympha, Pyrsonympha, and Oxymonas are each monophyletic and together form a clade which excludes other known eukaryotes. We have presented a taxonomic scheme of oxymonads taking into account their sisterhood with Trimastix and speculated on morphological evolution of oxymonads, particularly of their attachment apparatuses. Our biogeographical analysis with Japanese and Canadian Pyrsonympha and Dinenympha suggests that these genera diverged before the separation of termites that inhabit Eastern Asia and Western North America.
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 | 0.000 | 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".