MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6949904928 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.6109503

Heteromeyenia Potts 1881

2015· article· en· W6949904928 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMarine Sponges and Natural Products
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpongeConical surfaceSkeleton (computer programming)Smooth surfaceDrainage network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genus Heteromeyenia Potts, 1881 Synonymy. For synonymy see Manconi & Pronzato (2002). Diagnosis. Spongillidae with encrusting body shape. Choanosomal skeleton an irregular network of paucispicular parallel fibres and undefined secondary tracts. Sparse spongin. Megascleres and microscleres acanthoxeas. Gemmules free in the sponge body. Foramen circular, tube short or long, with or without filiform extensions. Gemmular theca tri-layered with gemmuloscleres radially embedded. Gemmuloscleres in one or two categories: birotules and pseudobirotules (sensu Batista et al. 2007). Type Species: Spongilla baileyi Bowerbank, 1863 (by subsequent designation; De Laubenfels 1936). Heteromeyenia barlettai sp. nov. Type locality. Aquarium in São Paulo, São Paulo State, Paraná Basin, Brazil. Type specimens: Holotype. UFPEPOR 1728. Paratypes: UFPEPOR 1729 and UFPEPOR 1730 (collected together with the holotype). Diagnosis. Sponge encrusting to slightly massive, with megascleres and microscleres acanthoxeas; only one category of birotule gemmuloscleres, with exclusively smooth rotules, radially inserted in outer and pneumatic layers (theca) of the gemmule. Description of holotype. UFPEPOR 1728 is encrusting measuring 6 cm 2. Colour is creamy white in vivo, without colour change after preservation in ethanol. Megascleres acanthoxeas (250–280.3–310 / 8.8–9.9–12.5 µm), microscleres acanthoxeas (63–76.6–88 / 3.8–5.0–6.3 µm), gemmuloscleres birotules (58–61.1–68 / 5–5.6–7.5 / 17.5–18.0–20 µm), gemmules scattered throughout the sponge body (396–488–600 µm in diameter) (Table 1). Description. Sponges encrusting to slightly massive, 3–5 mm thick, 3 cm wide. Surface hispid with tubular and translucent oscules. Colour creamy white in vivo, without colour change after preservation in ethanol (Fig. 1). Consistency soft to fragile. Megascleres acanthoxeas (235–279.9–332 / 8.1–9.7–12.5 µm), slightly curved, with conical microspines scattered in the median portion (Fig. 2 a,b). Microscleres acanthoxeas (63–78.3–106 / 3.8–5.3– 6.4 µm), straight to curved, entirely spined with a variable number of spines, usually more abundant and larger in the median portion of the shaft. Spines can be straight or curved, curved ones are simple and occur mainly towards the center of the spicule; straight ones are simple (rarely) or compound (predominantly), occur in the center of the spicule. The compound spines have a bouquet-like structure, where the primary spine supports the secondary ones (Fig. 2 c,d). Gemmulosclere birotules (Fig. 2 e) (58–62.9–71 / 5.0–6.6–9.7 // 16–18.5–23 µm), radially inserted in the theca of gemmules; shaft with conical spines (simple or compound) (Fig. 2 f). Rotules are smooth, circular, convex and identical, with microspines on their margins, inserted perpendicularly, erect or recurved in either direction (Fig. 2 g). Gemmules (396–488–600 µm) rare, small, spherical, scattered throughout the sponge body (Fig. 3 a). Foramen short, with rosette-like collar from some gemmuloscleres radially inserted. Gemmular theca trilayered, well developed, with irregular spaces, gemmuloscleres radially inserted in the pneumatic layer, inner layer with compact spongin, outer layer irregularly outlined (Fig. 3 b,c). Species/ Specimens Locality Megasclere Microscleres Acanthoxea Acanthoxea Holotype (UFPEPOR 1728) SP, Brazil 250–280.3–310 / 63–76.6–88 / 8.8–9.9–12.5 3.8–5–6.3 Paratype (UFPEPOR 1729) SP, Brazil 245–280–332 / 64–76.9–87 / 8.1–9.6–11.3 4.8–5.3–6.4 Paratype (UFPEPOR 1730) SP, Brazil 235–279.3–319 / 64–81.3–106 / 8.1–9.5–9.7 4.8–5.7–6.4 continued. Species/ Gemmuloscleres Gemmules Specimens Birotulate Pseudobirotulate Holotype (UFPEPOR 1728) 58–61.1–68 / – 396–488–600 5–5.6–7.5 // 17.5–18–20 Paratype (UFPEPOR 1729) 58–64.6–71 / – – 6.4–7.5–9.7 // 16–18.9–23 Paratype (UFPEPOR 1730) – – – Ecology. According to the aquarium owner, Mr. Fernando Barletta, an ideal condition for the development of these sponges is a pH 7.5 or higher. But when the specimens are subjected to lower pH (acidic conditions), the sponges produce gemmules and die. The sponges prefer the lentic sites in the aquarium, and can be found at leaves and roots of aquatic plants, crevices of woods, and the plastic filter, but not on the stones. Etymology. The chosen specific name honors Fernando Barletta, the owner of the aquarium whose curiosity permitted the discovery of the new species. Remarks. Batista et al. (2007) redefined the genus to allocate Heteromeyenia cristalina, which has only one category of gemmulosclere, differing from all other congeners that have two categories. Thus, by sharing this character, H. cristalina is the species most similar to H. barlettai sp. nov. However, the new species differs from H. cristalina by its gemmuloscleres which have smooth rotules, in contrast to the rotules of H.cristalina that are entirely covered in microspines. Futhermore, there are differences in the pattern of spination of the shaft of gemmuloscleres. Heteromeyenia barlettai sp. nov. has spines that are predominantly compound, against predominantly simple spines observed on the shafts of gemmuloscleres of H. cristalina. Although Batista et al. (2007) did not describe compound spines, these can be observed in SEM images of gemmuloscleres (see Batista et al. 2007; Figs. 21–22). Another difference derives from the sizes of the spicules, as the megascleres, microscleres and gemmuloscleres of H. cristalina are larger than those of the new species (Table 1,2). . latitenta (Potts, 1881) (1) PensII˅anIª' USA 265–285 / 8–11 85 –100 / 2–3 50 –55 60–78 – . stepanowii (Dysbowsky, 1884) (1) Czechoslovakia, 180–310 / 8–11 78 –88 / 2–3 58 –65 75–88 430–520 Germany, Poland, Russia, China, Japan, New South Wales . tentasperma (Potts, 1880) (1) Wisconsin, USA 260–280 / 7–10 75 –80 / 2-3 50 –55 65–72 420–450 . tubisperma (Potts, 1881) (1) Canada 190–230 / 7–10 85 –90 / 2-3 40 –48 60–70 500–550 . barlettai sp. nov. (5) SP, Brazil 235–279.9–332 / 63–78.3–106 / 58–62.9–71 / – 396–488–600 8.1–9.7–12.5 3.8–5.3–6.4 5–6.6–9.7 // 16–18.5–23 REFERENCES: (1) Penney & Racek (1968); (2) Batista et al. (2007); (3) Kilian & Wintermann-Kilian (1976); (4) Weltner (1895); (5) current work. The natural environment of Heteromeyenia barlettai sp nov. is unknown. The macrophytes of the aquarium came from fish farm tanks near the Guarapiranga Reservoir, one of the main water sources for the city of São Paulo. The aquarium water was collected from the same reservoir. Probably, the gemmules were carried by the water or came attached to the macrophytes.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicMarine Sponges and Natural ProductsFrench-language works237,207