A molecular investigation of Canadian Scytosiphonaceae (Phaeophyceae) including descriptions of <i>Planosiphon</i> gen. nov. and <i>Scytosiphon promiscuus</i> sp. nov.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identification of macroalgae has been greatly facilitated by the use of molecular tools. Using the DNA barcode (COI-5P = 5′ end of cytochrome c oxidase 1), we have uncovered considerable genetic variation in Scytosiphon. Whereas only four species were recognized in North America [S. canaliculatus (Setchell & N.L.Gardner) Kogame, S. complanatus (Rosenvinge) Doty, S. dotyi M.J.Wynne, and S. lomentaria (Lyngbye) Link], mitochondrial COI-5P data resolved 11 genetic groups while nuclear ITS data, in combination with morphological observations, supported recognition of seven species. These seven groups were assigned to: Scytosiphon Atlantic complex, S. sp._J, S. canaliculatus, S. complanatus, S. dotyi, S. lomentaria, and S. promiscuus sp. nov. One of the two species of Scytosiphon most commonly reported in North America, S. dotyi, was absent in Canada. Overlooked variation was also uncovered among Canadian collections of Colpomenia and Petalonia, indicating cryptic diversity in these scytosiphonacean genera as well. Multigene phylogenetic analyses supported the transfer of Petalonia zosterifolia (Reinke) Kuntz, Scytosiphon gracilis Kogame, and S. complanatus to Planosiphon gen. nov. Further, the included species of Chnoospora and Colpomenia failed to form monophyletic groups indicating that substantial taxonomic work remains for this brown algal family.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".