MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2616374351 · doi:10.11646/zootaxa.4268.2.1

The genera and species of Comatulidae (Comatulida: Crinoidea): taxonomic revisions and a molecular and morphological guide

2017· article· en· W2616374351 on OpenAlexaff
Mindi M. Summers, Charles G. Messing, Greg W. Rouse

Bibliographic record

VenueZootaxa · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Biology and Ecology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyLineage (genetic)Intraspecific competitionEvolutionary biologyCrinoidCytochrome c oxidase subunit IZoologyMolecular phylogeneticsKey (lock)Molecular taxonomyIdentification (biology)Taxonomy (biology)PhylogeneticsEcologyGeneGeneticsPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We provide a guide for identification of Comatulidae, a family of crinoid echinoderms, incorporating morphological and molecular evidence. A non-dichotomous key for all genera is included, as well as photographs of species most likely to be encountered in the tropical western Pacific Ocean. Based on sequencing of cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI), and other genes when necessary, we identified four cases where taxonomic revision was needed. We synonymized Comaster nobilis under Comaster schlegelii, and Clarkcomanthus exilis under Clarkcomanthus comanthipinnus, and re-described Clarkcomanthus albinotus. We also showed the variation of COI sequences within and among species, which varies from lineage to lineage. In some cases, specimens with obvious morphological disparity possessed very little intraspecific molecular diversity (<1%). In others, specimens with nearly identical external appearances exhibited quite divergent COI sequences (up to 6%). These results, combined with the non-dichotomous key herein, offer guidelines for identification and discussion of existing and new species of Comatulidae.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZootaxaSame topicMarine Biology and Ecology ResearchFrench-language works237,207