Margelopsis gibbesii (McCrady, 1859) (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): taxonomic review, and conservation of usage by designation of a lectotype
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The binomen Nemopsis gibbesii McCrady, 1859, originally applied to a species of hydromedusa and its supposed hydroid from South Carolina, USA, has been known for more than a century to encompass two species. The medusa stage is conspecific with that of Nemopsis bachei L. Agassiz, 1849, while the hydroid stage is referable to the genus Margelopsis Hartlaub, 1897. Both that hydroid, and the medusa stage now subjectively linked to it, are commonly assigned to M. gibbesii. With no type having ever been designated for McCrady's species, a lectotype is designated to stabilize nomenclature of the species and serve as the standard for application of the name. In the absence of type specimens, an illustration of the hydroid of N. gibbesii by McCrady is chosen as lectotype, thereby conserving the name Margelopsis gibbesii in its accustomed usage. Hydroids and medusae of the species are re-described from new material, the cnidome of both stages is characterized, and a taxonomic review is given. The hydroid stage is reported for the first time since its original description in the mid-19th century. Medusae of M. gibbesii are also seen infrequently, having been reported only six times earlier.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".