Description of Five New <i>Loma</i> (Microsporidia) Species in Pacific Fishes with Redesignation of the Type Species <i>Loma morhua</i> Morrison & Sprague, 1981, Based on Morphological and Molecular Species‐Boundaries Tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Five new species of Loma were described from five Pacific fishes using light-microscopic and ultrastructural features along with phylogenetic analysis of the gene sequences of ribosomal RNA (rRNA) and elongation factor 1-alpha. Morphological data revealed both qualitative and quantitative differences in developmental stages and timing, vesicles, xenoma features, and spore sizes with statistical support that differentiated Loma pacificodae n. sp. in Pacific cod, Loma wallae n. sp. in walleye pollock, Loma kenti n. sp. in Pacific tomcod, Loma lingcodae n. sp. in lingcod, and Loma richardi n. sp. in sablefish from each other and other species in the genus. Phylogenetic analyses combined with monophyly tests supported species designations, but with low resolution in two cases perhaps due to rRNA paralogs or recent speciation. Loma branchialis in haddock was shown to be separate from Loma morhua in Atlantic cod, thereby making L. morhua, and not L. branchialis, the type species. A species from brook trout was shown to be a separate species from Loma salmonae, not a variant strain selected in the laboratory. By comparison with gadid host phylogeny, these Loma species appear to have coevolved with their hosts, first colonizing the Pacific basin about 12 million years ago.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".