<i>Prorocentrum canariense</i> sp. nov., a case of pseudo‐cryptic speciation in the cosmopolitan dinoflagellate <i>P. compressum</i> (Prorocentrales, Dinophyceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The planktonic dinoflagellate Prorocentrum compressum is widespread in warm and temperate seas. A strain identified as P. cf. compressum BEA 0681B isolated from the island of Gran Canaria, NE Atlantic Ocean, showed a divergence in rDNA/ITS phylogenies with respect to P. compressum. The Canarian strain was oval, with an average length-to-width ratio of 1.35, smooth thecal surface with less than 150 thecal pores, including oblique pores, sometimes with a bifurcated opening. In contrast, P. compressum was rounder, with a length-to-width ratio < 1.2, with reticulate-foveate ornamentation and 200-300 pores per valve. We propose Prorocentrum canariense sp. nov. These species clustered as the most early-branching lineage in the clade Prorocentrum sensu stricto. Although this clade mainly contains planktonic species, the closer relatives were the benthic species P. tsawwassenense and P. elegans. Interestingly, P. compressum and P. canariense sp. nov. are widely distributed in temperate and warm seas without an apparent morphological adaptation to planktonic life. The formation of two concentric hyaline mucilaginous walls could contribute to this success. We discuss the use of Prorocentrum bidens to solve the nomenclature issue of P. compressum that was described citing a diatom as basionym.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".