CHARACTER EVOLUTION IN POLYKRIKOID DINOFLAGELLATES<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A synthesis of available data on the morphological diversity of polykrikoid dinoflagellates allowed us to formulate a hypothesis of relationships that help explain character evolution within the group. Phylogenetic analyses of new SSU rDNA sequences from Pheopolykrikos beauchampii Chatton, Polykrikos kofoidii Chatton, and Polykrikos lebourae Herdman helped refine this hypothetical framework. Our results demonstrated that “pseudocolonies” in dinoflagellates evolved convergently at least three times independently from different Gymnodinium ‐like ancestors: once in haplozoans; once in Ph. beauchampii ; and at least once within a lineage containing Ph. hartmannii , P. kofoidii , and P. lebourae . The Gymnodiniales sensu stricto was strongly supported by the data, and the type species for the genus, namely Gymnodinium fuscum (Ehrenb.) F. Stein, formed the nearest sister lineage to a well‐supported Polykrikos clade. The best synapomorphy for the Polykrikos clade was the presence of two nuclei irrespective of zooid number. Two unidentified Gymnodinium species formed the nearest sister clade to Ph. beauchampii , which has four nuclei and four zooids per pseudocolony. The chain‐forming dinoflagellate G. catenatum L. W. Graham branched closely to the clade containing all members of Polykrikos and Pheopolykrikos , suggesting that an ancestral capacity toward chain formation existed before the evolution of pseudocolonies in this group. Our results also clarified the phylogenetic significance of nematocysts, ocelloids, and photosynthesis in reconstructing the evolution of polykrikoids and warnowiids. The molecular phylogenies exposed taxonomic problems associated with Polykrikos , Pheopolykrikos , and Gymnodinium , and suggested that a revision for some of these genera is warranted.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".