ANATOMICAL AND NUCLEAR SSU rDNA SEQUENCE DATA INDICATE THAT THE DASYACEAE AND DELESSERIACEAE ARE POLYPHYLETIC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Choi, H.‐G.1,3, Kraft, G. T.2, Lee, I. K.3 & Saunders, G. W.1 1Centre for Environmental & Molecular Algal Research, Department of Biology, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, N.B., E3B 6E1, Canada; 2School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia; 3School of Biological Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul 151‐742, Korea The aim of the current investigation was to test the general convention that the Dasyaceae, Delesseriaceae and Rhodomelaceae (Ceramiales, Rhodophyta) are all monophyletic. Phylogenetic relationships among 45 ceramialean taxa, including eight ceramiacean, 18 dasyacean, nine delesseriacean, eight rhodomelacean species and two of uncertain affiliation, based on 34 anatomical characters and nuclear small‐subunit (SSU) rDNA sequences were determined. Results from our ‘total‐evidence’ approach were consistent with the notion that the Dasyaceae, Delesseriaceae and Rho‐ domelaceae have evolved from a common ancestor within a paraphyletic Ceramiaceae. Our data indicate, however, that the Rhodomelaceae alone was monophyletic with the Dasyaceae unequivocally polyphyletic and the Delesseriaceae either polyphyletic, or paraphyletic in excluding the Dasya‐group. Based on our results the Heterosiphoniaceae fam. nov. H.‐G. Choi, Kraft, I.K. Lee et G.W. Saunders is proposed for the Heterosiphonia‐group, previously placed in the family Dasyaceae. Although the Dasyaceae sensu stricto is a natural group, it is in need of a thorough systematic investigation at the generic level. Our analyses indicate that the genus Dasya is polyphyletic in excluding Dasysiphonia, Eupogodon and Rhodoptilum, and Heterosiphonia japonica has affinities to this group as well.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".