MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411393516 · doi:10.1645/24-115

A Systematic Revision of Kroyeria (Copepoda: Siphonostomatoida): Five New Species, 11 Redescriptions, and a Morphological Phylogenetic Analysis of the Genus

2025· article· en· W4411393516 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory B. Deets, Geoffrey A. Boxshall, James P. Bernot

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Parasitology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicParasite Biology and Host Interactions
Canadian institutionsHyperion Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyTaxonomy (biology)SystematicsSetaZoologyGenusPhylogenetic treeCarcharhinusCrustaceanRostrumEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study focuses on the taxonomy and systematics of Kroyeria, a genus of ectoparasitic copepods found on the gills of sharks. Members of the genus Kroyeria exhibit species-specific appendage ornamentation, including denticles, membranes, and setules, in addition to the setae and spines typical of most copepods. The taxonomy and systematics of Kroyeria have been hampered by the lack of observation of these fine morphological details. This study is a systematic revision of the genus in which 11 species of Kroyeria are redescribed, 6 species are synonymized, and 5 new species are described: Kroyeria branchiocetes n. sp. from Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos from the Red Sea, Kroyeria cresseyi n. sp. from Triakis semifasciata from off California, Kroyeria decepta n. sp. from Carcharhinus obscurus from the Pacific Ocean off Mexico, Kroyeria procerobscena n. sp. from Carcharhinus leucas from off Madagascar, and Kroyeria rhophemophaga n. sp. from Galeorhinus galeus from off California. With this work, Kroyeria now comprises 20 valid species. The 16 species of Kroyeria that were examined in this study were scored for 44 morphological characters, which were used for a phylogenetic analysis of the genus.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ParasitologySame topicParasite Biology and Host InteractionsFrench-language works237,207