MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404659439 · doi:10.12782/specdiv.29.389

Taxonomic Status of the Commercially Important Grouper, <i>Epinephelus</i> <i>bruneus</i> and <i>E. moara</i> (Osteichthys: Perciformes: Epinephelidae), with the Redescription of <i>E. bruneus</i> and the Description of a New Species

2024· article· en· W4404659439 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kouichi Hoshino, Hiroshi Senou

Bibliographic record

VenueSpecies Diversity · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIchthyology and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceJapan Fisheries Research and Education AgencyNaturalis Biodiversity CenterInstitute of GeneticsVietnam Academy of Science and Technology
KeywordsGrouperPerciformesEpinephelusBiologyFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The epinephelid longtooth grouper comprises two nominal species, Epinephelus bruneus Bloch, 1793 and E. moara (Temminck and Schlegel, 1843). The name E. moara had been applied to specimens in Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, but was later relegated to the junior synonymy of E. bruneus. However, in continental China, two forms of longtooth groupers have been recognized: one distributed in the South China Sea (herein the “southern form”) and another in the East and South China Seas (the “northern from”). The name E. bruneus has been applied to the former, and E. moara to the latter. A recent study demonstrated that the two forms were morphologically and genetically distinct. However, because that study did not examine the name-bearing types, the appropriate scientific names remained uncertain. Examinations herein of the lectotypes and the original illustrations for the descriptions of E. bruneus and E. moara, and comparisons of specimens of both forms, revealed that both lectotypes were conspecific with the “northern form”; therefore, the valid name for this form is E. bruneus, again relegating E. moara to its junior synonymy. The “southern form” is described herein as E. randalli sp. nov., which is distinguished from E. bruneus by fewer dorsal-fin soft rays (13–14, usually 13 vs. 14–16, usually 15), the size and number of enlarged serrae at the corner of the preopercle (abruptly and remarkably enlarged, 2–4 vs. gradually and slightly enlarged, 2–11, usually 4–7), the scales on the side of body (cycloid except pectoral region vs. mostly ctenoid), and the patterns of the body bars and the head bands. The use of these correct scientific names will greatly assist communication regarding the appropriate development of stock management, aquaculture, and conservation of these commercially important groupers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpecies DiversitySame topicIchthyology and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207