Insights into Nitzschia amphibia Grunow (Bacillariophyta, Bacillariaceae): Lectotypification and a comparative study with N. amphibioides Hustedt and N. semirobusta Lange-Bertalot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The original description and illustrations of Nitzschia amphibia by Grunow in 1862 are insufficiently clear for the accurate identification of contemporary specimens, which may have contributed to misidentifications among N. amphibia, N. amphibioides, and N. semirobusta commonly found in the literature. This study aims to clarify the morphological differences between these three species by examining both historical and recent samples, along with the original description of N. amphibia. The species are compared morphologically, and a lectotype for N. amphibia is designated. This work also includes the first report of scanning electron microscopy images of N. amphibioides. While fibula morphology clearly distinguishes N. amphibia from N. semirobusta, measurements such as valve length, width, and the densities of striae and fibulae do not separate these two species. In contrast, N. amphibioides is distinctly different, characterized by longer, wider, and more robust valves with coarser striation. Additionally, this study reassesses various previously published records and revises some identifications based on newly gathered data.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".