New Species of Lissodendoryx Topsent, 1892 (Demospongiae, Poecilosclerida, Coelosphaeridae) and Myxilla Schmidt, 1862 (Demospongiae, Poecilosclerida, Myxillidae) from the Northeast Pacific
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collections of sponges by the late Dr. William C. Austin and the authors (N. McDaniel, R. Harbo and B. Ott) provided material for descriptions of new species from two genera of Poecilosclerida for shallow waters of Southern British Columbia, Canada and Northern Washington, USA: Lissodendoryx and Myxilla. There have been no new species of these two genera described for the Northeast Pacific since Laubenfels' work in central California (Laubenfels 1930, 1932) and Lambe's reports in 1893 to 1895 for Geological Survey of Canada sponge collections from British Columbia, Canada to the Bering Sea. We describe three new species of Lissodendoryx (Lissodendoryx) (Demospongiae, Poecilosclerida, Coelosphaeridae) and one new species of Myxilla (Myxilla) (Demospongiae, Poecilosclerida, Myxillidae): L. (L.) barkleyensis n. sp., L. (L.) littoralis n. sp., L. (L.) toxaraphida n. sp. and M. (M.) austini n. sp. Lissodendoryx (L.) barkleyensis n. sp. is cave-dwelling, has acanthostyles 112-260 µm, tornotes 107-177 µm, arcuate isochelas 8-28 µm and two sizes of sigmas 18-29, 26-55 µm. Lissodendoryx (L.) littoralis n. sp. fistulate habitus is adapted to muddy substrates similar to some Polymastia species also found commonly in the Northeast Pacific. It has subtylostyles 185-336 µm, tylotes 112-229 µm, arcuate isochelas 11-23 µm, and sigmas 30-75 µm. Lissodendoryx (L.) toxaraphida n. sp. is the only described Lissodendoryx species with raphides shaped like toxas. It has acanthostyles 140-286 µm, tornotes 143-195µm, arcuate isochelas 18-34 µm and toxiform raphides 65-156 µm. Myxilla (M.) austini n. sp. has a fistulate habitus and both tornote and tylote megascleres. It appears to be tolerant of low oxygen environments. Myxilla (M.) austini n. sp. has smooth to sparsely spined styles 193-353 µm, tylotes 153-221 µm, tornotes 174-260 µm, two sizes of anchorate isochelas 13-27, 42-81 µm, and two sizes of sigmas 13-47, 33-78 µm. All specimens were collected from shallow water (intertidal to 25 m).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".