Molecular and morphological variation supports monotypy of the octocoral Briareum Blainville, 1830 (Octocorallia: Alcyonacea) in the Western Atlantic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current diagnosis and description of the octocoral genus Briareum ascribes to it a single Caribbean species, Briareum asbestinum. Nonetheless, the combination Briareum polyanthes is commonly used in the scientific literature for the encrusting form of this species, and it has been proposed that growth form, allozyme differences, and secondary chemistry support recognition of the digitate form and the encrusting form as separate species. Through comparison of sclerite sizes and nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences, as well as a review of studies of secondary metabolites, we find that variation in these characters is not correlated as much to growth form as to location or habitat. Analyses of traditional morphological characters and molecular data support the monotypy of Briareum in the western Atlantic. The subjective junior synonymy of Ammothea ( = Briareum) polyanthes with B. asbestinum is reiterated and a modified description of the species is provided, including an assessment of intraspecific sclerite variation. Partial mitochondrial gene sequences showed no variation among all forms and locations (Bermuda and The Bahamas), whereas the 18S-ITS1-5.8S-ITS2-28S nuclear ribosomal locus contained multiple unique genotypes within and among individuals, growth forms and geographic locations. Extensive intragenomic heterogeneity in the nuclear ribosomal locus, existing in excess of normal heterozygosity, indicates that the multiple copies of the 18S-ITS1-5.8S-ITS2-28S array are not homogenized through concerted evolution. Since this intragenomic variation requires extensive screening to determine the homology of haplotypes and can confound comparison between individuals, we recommend the future use of single-copy nuclear markers in studies of octocoral systematics and evolution.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".