Cosmarium spierense Van Westen et Coesel 2018, sp. nov
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cosmarium spierense Van Westen et Coesel sp. nov (Figs 7–8, 27–40) Cells slightly longer than broad to about as long as broad, deeply constricted; sinus linear and closed for the most part. Semicells in frontal view suboblong with broadly rounded angles and convex lateral sides. Lateral sides, including the apical angles, 5–6-crenate, the crenations near the basal angle with one granule, the other ones generally with two granules. Apex truncate and bi-undulate. Cell wall ornamented with small granules, arranged in short, intramarginal, radiating series, the upper 4–5 lateral series doubled near the margin. In addition, a central tumour ornamented with 6 bended vertical series of granules, the inner two as a rule mutually fused to a big, central wrath. Semicells in apical view broadly elliptic with a more or less triangular tumour on either side, in lateral view subovate with a faint inflation near the base. Chloroplast axile with one pyrenoid. Zygospore globose, furnished with long, stout, furcate spines. Dimensions: cell length 24–31 μm, breath 22–28 μm, thickness 17–18 μm, isthmus 8.7–10.5 μm; L/B 1.07–1.14. Zygospore diameter (exclusive of spines) about 30 μm. Type:— THE NETHERLANDS. Drenthe: Shallow pool in nature restauration area in Dwingelderveld near Spier, 52.8324° N, 6.4788° E, among submerged mosses on sandy soil, pH 7.3, EC 22 μS cm-1. Van Westen, 4 May 2015 (holotype L! Hugo de Vries Lab 2018.04, preserved as a fixed natural sample). Differential diagnosis:— Cosmarium spierense belongs to the group of small crenate Cosmarium -species with a central ornamentation consisting of curved vertical rows of small granules. It could be compared with C. subcostatum Nordstedt (1876: 37, pl. 12: 13) but semicells of that species are trapeziform in outline and have a less elaborate central ornamentation. Our algal form rather should be compared with Cosmarium norvegicum Strøm (1926: 214, pl. 5: 15, 16). The latter is a but little known species and has been reported only a few times. In Europe, only by Strøm from Norway and by Förster (1967) from Sweden. Taylor (1934) reported this species from Newfoundland, Irénée-Marie (1939) from Canada and Fučíková et al (2008) from the USA. They invariably draw vertical rows of granules in the central ornamentation, nowhere the big, central wrath characteristic of our taxon is mentioned or depicted. Moreover, in C. norvegicum the outline of the semicells is semielliptic to semicircular (with the largest breadth at the base) rather than suboblong (with the largest breadth about halfway) as in our material. With respect to that latter feature, our taxon much resembles C. subcostatum var. spetsbergense Borge (1911: 18, fig. 13). As, however, Borge does not describe or depict the central ornamentation of that variety, and we are of opinion that our taxon essentially differs from C. subcostatum, we prefer to render our alga the status of a separate species under a new name. The name of the species refers to the village where an abundant and sporulating population was found. Ecology and geographical distribution: — C. spierense was encountered at several locations in Drenthe between mosses in slightly acidic to neutral, oligotrophic, shallow pools on sandy soil. Remarkably, this species was also found in a sample from Iceland (leg. D. Vuijk, 2016) in a more or less comparable environment. It cannot be excluded that C. spierense is an arctic-alpine element in the desmid flora of the Netherlands.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.011 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".