Clarifying the Taxonomic Identity of a Phylogenetically Important Group of Eukaryotes: <i>Planomonas</i> is a Junior Synonym of <i>Ancyromonas</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ancyromonas was first described in 1882 by Saville Kent, with the modern concept of the genus dating from 1979 with the work of Hänel. Since then, organisms assigned to Ancyromonas have been found to be common in diverse ecosystems, and the group's isolated phylogenetic placement renders it of considerable evolutionary interest. However, in 2008 Cavalier-Smith et al. concluded that all modern accounts of Ancyromonas were of a different organism from that described by Saville Kent, and erected the new genus Planomonas to encompass modern observations of Ancyromonas, and several new species. We critique the rationale for creating this new genus, reexamining the original sources and making additional observations using light and electron microscopy. We find that almost all the differences between the genera are mistaken or insubstantial. In particular, (1) Cavalier-Smith et al. characterized Ancyromonas sensu Saville Kent as anchoring and Planomonas as gliding, while we find that each type of organism actually does both, and (2) it was claimed that Planomonas is flattened while Ancyromonas sensu Saville Kent is not, but this argument is inconsistent. We treat Planomonas as a junior synonym of Ancyromonas, and Planomonas mylnikovi as a junior synonym of Ancyromonas sigmoides. We transfer Planomonas cephalopora, Planomonas micra, Planomonas howeae and Planomonas limna to Ancyromonas. The genus Ancyromonas therefore includes: A. sigmoides, Ancyromonas cephalopora n. comb., Ancyromonas melba, Ancyromonas sinistra, Ancyromonas micra n. comb., Ancyromonas howeae n. comb., and Ancyromonas limna n. comb.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".