Mismatch of morphological and molecular identifications in native and invasive subspecies of <i>Codium fragile</i> (Bryopsidophyceae, Chlorophyta)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several subspecies are defined within Codium fragile, including the invasive C. fragile ssp. fragile, first reported in New Zealand in 1973. An endemic subspecies, C. fragile ssp. novae-zelandiae, is also found throughout New Zealand. The two subspecies exhibit morphological and molecular variation, although these have never been evaluated together. We compared variation between subspecies at locations in Auckland, identifying subspecies using rps3-rpl16 DNA sequence data, and assessing gross morphological differences, anatomical utricle characters and morphometrics. The taxonomic utility of the morphometric data sets was assessed by linear discriminant analysis. Utricle characters and measurements varied within individual thalli and between different preservation methods. The phenotypes of both subspecies were highly variable and influenced by environment. Accurate subspecies delimitation using morphological data was not possible; the discriminant analyses performed no better than chance for all combinations of the morphological data. Specimens from New Zealand, Canada, Australia and Ireland were sequenced using both the rps3-rpl16 and tufA plastid markers. The tufA elongation factor was shown to be a good candidate for differentiating subspecies of C. fragile. This marker is twice the length of the rps3-rpl16 spacer, shows greater variation between ssp. fragile and novae-zelandiae, and is less prone to sequencing error. A simple restriction enzyme digest of the tufA amplicon can distinguish ssp. fragile and ssp. novae-zelandiae. Our study expands the known range of the ssp. fragile in New Zealand, including the first record of this subspecies from the west coast of Auckland, and points to a need to re-evaluate morphological and molecular criteria for subspecies currently defined within C. fragile.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".