Biogeography and systematics of<i>Hildenbrandia</i>(Rhodophyta, Hildenbrandiales) in Europe: inferences from morphometrics and<i>rbc</i>L and 18S rRNA gene sequence analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty-one marine and freshwater specimens of Hildenbrandia from Europe were compared by analyses of morphometric data and sequences of the rbcL chloroplast gene (which codes for the large subunit of the ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase enzyme) and the nuclear 18S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene. Eleven freshwater specimens, all corresponding to H. rivularis, were collected from the British Isles, Germany, France, Austria, Spain and Italy. Six marine specimens, representing H. rubra, were obtained from Northern Ireland, Wales, France, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, while four marine specimens, corresponding to H. crouanii, were collected from Scotland and Germany. Morphometric analyses of vegetative and reproductive characters distinguished three groups of specimens, which correspond to the three species. Parsimony and distance analyses of the rbcL and 18S rRNA genes were performed on these samples and sequences of North American representatives were included to determine their inter-relationships. The rbcL gene sequence analyses separated the marine and freshwater specimens, with the H. rivularis and H. angolensis representatives forming a wellsupported monophyletic clade. The rbcL sequence analyses did not resolve the groupings of marine specimens determined in the morphometric analysis. Analyses of the 18S rRNA gene sequences also supported separation of the marine samples from freshwater samples, although the bootstrap and decay support was not as strong as for the rbcL gene. H. rubra formed a monophyletic clade that was weakly supported. In terms of biogeographic trends, the fairly low intraspecific divergence of H. rivularis (0–1·9% for the rbcL gene and 0–3·6% for the 18S rRNA gene) and the positioning of these samples in the gene trees supports the concept that they are derived from marine populations.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".