Molecular phylogeny of the marine Prasiola and Rosenvingiella species (Chlorophyta: Prasiolales) from southeastern Kamchatka
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Molecular phylogenetic tools are often useful in distinguishing cryptic species with similar morphologies, but they can also be helpful in identifying morphotypes of a species, which displays completely different shapes. We performed molecular-phylogenetic analysis of supra-tidal green algae in the Kamchatka peninsula that belong to the order Prasiolales (Trebouxiophyceae, Chlorophyta). Based on rbc L sequences results, two new species were recorded for the first time in Kamchatka. Approximately 1.4% of the field-collected Rosenvingiella constricta had a unique uniseriate hood-like blade shape, although their rbc L sequences were 100% identical with typical multiseriate filamentous plants. Kamchatka’s population of R. constricta showed 99.4–99.6% identity in rbc L sequences with the populations from Canada and New Zealand. Another similar-looking Rosenvingiella species collected from the same locality had 93.5% identity of the rbcL gene sequence with R. constricta . Morphological and geographical analyses also suggested that this species might be a new species of the genus Rosenvingiella . Prasiola delicata was recorded for the first time in Kamchatka. The Kamchatka population of P. delicata showed 100% identity in rbc L gene sequence with the population from Vancouver, but differed from the Canadian population morphologically.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".