Re-evaluation of<i>Cerebropollenites thiergartii</i>Eberh.Schulz 1967 and related taxa: priority of<i>Sciadopityspollenites</i>and nomenclatural novelties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The important marker species for the base of the Jurassic, Cerebropollenites thiergartii, occurs contemporaneously with at least nine related taxa.However, their distinction is difficult and has been confused in the past.In addition, a long history of numerous recombinations with different genus names (e.g.Tsugaepollenites and Sciadopityspollenites), and inconsistent classifications or synonymisations, further complicate the taxonomic framework of Cerebropollenites thiergartii.A comprehensive study of these ten taxa, summarising their crucial distinctive characteristics and potential synonymy, is currently missing.This limits the stratigraphic value of Cerebropollenites thiergartii and associated taxa relevant to the Triassic-Jurassic transition.Here, we revisit relevant holotype material, related taxa and investigated new material for potential interspecific and intraspecific morphological variation.Based on an empirical analysis of name use and an extensive literature review, we identified previous sources of confusion, re-evaluated the distinctive characteristics and stratigraphic value of these taxa, and their relevance for the Triassic-Jurassic transition.Finally, we argue that the recombination as Sciadopityspollenites thiergartii is taxonomically and nomenclaturally imperative, not only due to priority, but also because it unifies previous disjunct use of Cerebropollenites for Mesozoic and Sciadopityspollenites for Cenozoic taxa, or Mesozoic species in many Russian studies.Thus, we propose a series of nomenclatural novelties: Sciadopityspollenites emend., Sciadopityspollenites thiergartii comb.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".