<i>Rosetta</i> gen. nov. (Chlorophyta): Resolving the identity of red snow algal rosettes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thick-walled rosette-like snow algae were long thought to be a life stage of various other species of snow algae. Rosette-like cells have not been cultured, but by manually isolating cells from 38 field samples in southern British Columbia, we assigned a variety of rosette morphologies to DNA sequence. Phylogenetic analysis of Rubisco large-subunit (rbcL) gene, ribosomal internal transcribed spacer 2 (ITS2) rRNA region, and 18S rRNA gene revealed that the rosette-like cells form a new clade within the phylogroup Chloromonadinia. Based on these data, we designate a new genus, Rosetta, which comprises five novel species: R. castellata, R. floranivea, R. stellaria, R. rubriterra, and R. papavera. In a survey of 762 snow samples from British Columbia, we observed R. floranivea exclusively on snow overlying high-elevation glaciers, whereas R. castellata was observed at lower elevations, near the tree line. The other three species were rarely observed. Spherical red cells enveloped in a thin translucent sac were conspecific with Rosetta, possibly a developmental stage. These results highlight the unexplored diversity among snow algae and emphasize the utility of single-cell isolation to advance the centuries-old problem of disentangling life stages and cryptic species.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".