MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152922435 · doi:10.3732/ajb.1500308

Resolving cryptic species of <i>Bossiella</i> (Corallinales, Rhodophyta) using contemporary and historical DNA

2015· article· en· W2152922435 on OpenAlexafffund
Katharine R. Hind, Kathy Ann Miller, Madeline Young, Cassandra Jensen, Paul W. Gabrielson, Patrick T. Martone

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Botany · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsTula FoundationUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHakai Institute
KeywordsBiologyEvolutionary biologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PREMISE OF THE STUDY: Phenotypic plasticity and convergent evolution have long complicated traditional morphological taxonomy. Fortunately, DNA sequences provide an additional basis for comparison, independent of morphology. Most importantly, by obtaining DNA sequences from historical type specimens, we are now able to unequivocally match species names to genetic groups, often with surprising results. METHODS: We used an integrative taxonomic approach to identify and describe Northeast Pacific pinnately branched species in the red algal coralline genus Bossiella, for which traditional taxonomy recognized only one species, the generitype, Bossiella plumosa. We analyzed DNA sequences from historical type specimens and modern topotype specimens to assign species names and to identify genetic groups that were different and that required new names. Our molecular taxonomic assessment was followed by a detailed morphometric analysis of each species. KEY RESULTS: Our study of B. plumosa revealed seven pinnately branched Bossiella species. Three species, B. frondescens, B. frondifera, and B. plumosa, were assigned names based on sequences from type specimens. The remaining four species, B. hakaiensis, B. manzae, B. reptans, and B. montereyensis, were described as new to science. In most cases, there was significant overlap of morphological characteristics among species. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores the pitfalls of relying upon morpho-anatomy alone to distinguish species and highlights our likely underestimation of species worldwide. Our integrative taxonomic approach can serve as a model for resolving the taxonomy of other plant and algal genera.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.158 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of BotanySame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207