NOTA SOBRE LA VALIDEZ DE FISSIRHYNCHIA PEARSON, 1977 (BRACHIOPODA, RHYNCHONELLIDA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The object of this note is to try to clarify the delicate situation conceming the rhynchonellid species Blumchonella [issicostata Suess, 1854, which in the last few years has been independently related to at least four different, newly erected, nominal genera: al Costirhynchia Dagis, 1974 (type-species: C. spatiosa Dagis, 1974, from the Carnian of northwest Caucasus}, in fact a junior homonym of Costirhynchia S. Buckman, 1918 (type-species: C. costigera Buckman, 1918, from the Aalenian of Great Britain); b) Eoseptaliphoria Ching & Sun, 1976 (type-species: E. tulungensis Ching & Sun, 1976, from the early Norian of Tibet ; e) Fissirhynchia Pearson, 1977 [first quarter] (type-species: R. fissicostata Suess, from the Rhaetian of Walleg, Austria); d) Costirhynchopsis Dagis, 1977 [third quarter], a replacement name for Costirhynchia Dagis non Buckman, therefore automaticaJly taking the same type-species. All these generic entities, as understood by their respective authors, are extremely closely related and mutuaJly overlapping in their scope, specially relying upon external haracters alone.A closer look at published internal features, however, reveals slight differences in inner structure such as a brachial septum of moderate length but consistently low from the plane of articulation onwards in one group of species like C. spatiosa Dagis and F. fissicostata (Suess), whilst other group of species including E. tulungensis Ching & Sun and E. intorta Ching & Sun share a longer and conspicuously higher brachial median septum. Pending additional knowledge of the internal characteristics of other species of intermediate or dubious position, with the evidence at hand the best procedure would be: To accept Fissirlujnchla as senior ubjective synonyrn into which, in addition to Rhaeto-Liassic species (e.g.: Fissirhynchia fissicostata), the bulk of Triassic species included by Dagis in bis pre-occupied genus Costirhynchia (Iater = Costirhynchopsis) could be accomodated; whilst the rest of the species concerned would fit into osepialiphoria in a restricted sense, encompassing those forms bearing a higher median septum.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".