The Dicranemataceae (Gigartinales, Rhodophyta) revisited: molecular data indicate polyphyly in yet another wholly or primarily Australian endemic family
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Dicranemataceae was monographed morphotaxonomically by Kraft in 1977, to which the four genera Dicranema Sond., Peltasta J.Agardh., Reptataxis Kraft and Tylotus J.Agardh were attributed. All, save for a species of Tylotus J.Agardh (from east Asia), were endemic to Australia. Additions (in 2006 and 2014 respectively) were the genus Pinnatiphycus N’Yeurt, Payri & P.W.Gabrielson from New Caledonia and Fiji and a new species of Tylotus from Hawaii. General features emphasised by Kraft were similarities of apical and internal structure, zonate tetrasporangia, monoecious gametophytes and placentate cystocarps. The genera did not show uniformity in regard to thallus habits and especially carposporophytes, however, the major differences of which were not accorded any family-level significance. Two later studies, N’Yeurt et al. in 2006 and Kraft et al. in 2014, presented limited molecular data but did not treat the family as a whole or fully resolve relationships between all of the taxa, leaving Kraft’s assumption that the family was monophyletic unchallenged. We address all of the genera, both anatomically and molecularly, and support proposal of two new families, the Peltastaceae and Tylotaceae, in addition to a monogeneric Dicranemataceae. A new genus and species of Peltastaceae, Peltastanomala virantra G.W.Saunders & Kraft, has unique axial and spermatangial anatomies and an unexpected family association with Peltasta. Two additional new genera and species (Chambersius thyrsus G.W.Saunders & Kraft and Huismanophycus marinus G.W.Saunders & Kraft) are even more dissimilar to Peltasta in habit and structure but weakly allied to the Peltastaceae on molecular evidence. Both are therefore regarded as incertae sedis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".