MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410288164 · doi:10.1080/00318884.2025.2494286

Morphological and molecular studies in the genus <i>Hypnea</i> (Rhodophyta) in Australia: <i>Hypnea decipiens sp. nov</i> . and <i>Hypnea subramentacea</i> sp. nov

2025· article· en· W4410288164 on OpenAlexaff
John M. Huisman, Rachel M. Binks, Katherine M. Taylor, Gary W. Saunders

Bibliographic record

VenuePhycologia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyBotanyGenus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Molecular analyses (rbcL, COI-5P) of Australian specimens that had previously been identified as Hypnea musciformis based on morphology have revealed that this entity is not that species but rather represents an undescribed cryptic species that is here named Hypnea decipiens sp. nov. The new species is known from south-western and southern Australia, north to the Houtman Abrolhos (Geraldton region) of Western Australia and east to the Eyre Peninsula, South Australia. Plants can be locally common in the shallow subtidal and grow to 14 cm in height, with upper branches terminated by crozier-like hooks. Vegetative, cystocarpic and tetrasporangial plants are known, with the zonate tetrasporangia arising in nemathecia at the basal or median sections of lateral branchlets. Despite the morphological similarities, in phylogenetical analyses H. decipiens did not group with the H. musciformis complex (H. musciformis, H. pseudomusciformis, H. caraibica, H. schneideri), but rather was sister to the South African H. rosea. An additional new species, H. subramentacea sp. nov. is described for specimens from south-western Australia that were sister to the common H. ramentacea.

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)0.000
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhycologiaSame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207