Transfer of <i>Pilinia</i> from Ectocarpales to Ishigeales (Phaeophyceae) with proposal of Piliniaceae fam. nov., and taxonomy of <i>Porterinema</i> in Ectocarpales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Molecular phylogeny based on concatenated sequences of chloroplast atpB, psaA, psbA, psbC and rbcL genes indicates that the filamentous brown alga Pilinia rimosa is phylogenetically distant from the Ectocarpales, in which it has been classified (as Waerniella lucifuga). In the tree, Pilinia was sister to the clade comprised of Ishige and Petroderma (Ishigeales) supported by high statistical values. Observations of unialgal P. rimosa cultures originating from Helgoland (Germany), England (UK), Woods Hole (USA) and Newfoundland (Canada) showed a direct type of life history with reproduction by characteristic unilocular zoidangia typically forming only four zoids. Despite the description of plurilocular zoidangia in Kuckuck’s account as well as in later publications, we conclude that those observations were based on misinterpretation of the very small unilocular zoidangia formed in series, often with longitudinal walls between zoidangia. Pilinia rimosa grows in caves or crevices in rocks, and on walls or wood pilings in deep shade in the upper intertidal and spray zone, and is therefore regarded as a marine species, but it could also survive and mature in freshwater medium. We propose the establishment of a new family Piliniaceae for Pilinia and place it in Ishigeales. Molecular and morphological analysis of the culture strains, SAG 124.79 and SAG 2381, identified as the euryhaline alga Porterinema fluviatile, indicated that SAG 124.79 is in fact P. rimosa. However, SAG 2381 is true P. fluviatile, also displaying the characteristic plurilocular zoidangia. Porterinema was shown to be a member of the Chordariaceae, Ectocarpales sensu lato.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".