Reinstatement of <i>Corallina chilensis</i> (Corallinaceae, Rhodophyta) based on DNA sequencing of the type material collected by Darwin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine whether Corallina chilensis is a distinct species or a variety (i.e. C. officinalis var. chilensis) of the generitype of Corallina, molecular phylogenetic analyses were performed using psbA, COI-5P, rbcL, or some combination of these gene regions from 75 voucher specimens representing Corallina collections from around the world. Names were applied by comparing these DNA sequences with sequences obtained from type specimens, including a 263 bp rbcL sequence from an isotype of C. chilensis collected by Darwin (C. Darwin 2151) from Valparaiso, Chile. DNA sequences from the C. chilensis isotype matched unnamed coralline DNA sequences from British Columbia, Canada, and previously published DNA sequences from the northeast and southeast Pacific. The clade containing the isotype of C. chilensis was distinct from C. officinalis specimens in phylogenetic analyses. Although morphologically variable, fronds of C. chilensis from British Columbia populations matched Kützing’s original description of C. officinalis var. chilensis. These data support the conclusion that C. chilensis is a distinct species, not a variety of C. officinalis, and is distributed in both hemispheres. While this study strongly supported C. chilensis as a distinct species, phylogenetic relationships among Corallina species remain elusive because individual gene trees are not congruent.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".