Eudendrium irregulare Fraser 1922
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eudendrium irregulare Fraser, 1922a Eudendrium irregulare Fraser, 1922a: 97, pl. 1, fig. 7. Syntypes. BCPM 976-00235-001: Canada, British Columbia, Northumberland Channel, 14 July 1921, 27 m; 60% IPA. Lectotype, by present designation. RBCM 976-00235-002: Canada, British Columbia, Northumberland Channel, 27 m, 14 July 1921, one straggling colony, overgrowing a lafoeid, in poor condition, pedicels up to about 3 mm high, hydranths mostly absent or very badly deteriorated, gonophores absent; 70% ethanol. Paralectotypes. BCPM 976-00235-001: Canada, British Columbia, Northumberland Channel, 14 July 1921, 27 m; several small colonies on lafoeids, in poor condition, gonophores absent; 60% IPA. Type locality. Canada, British Columbia: Northumberland Channel, 27 m (Fraser 1922a). Current status. Valid. Remarks. Collection data accompanying the RBCM specimens (BCPM 976-00235-001) accord with those given in the original description of Eudendrium irregulare by Fraser (1922a). Hydroids in the Fraser Collection are therefore taken to be syntypes. The lectotype colony selected here (RBCM 976-00235-002) was chosen as the best representative of the species amongst the syntypes in the collection. All remaining specimens of the original syntype series are paralectotypes. Another collection of the species recorded in the RBCM database (BCPM 976- 00166-001 -Z) could not be located. A bottle with a similar collection number (BCPM 976-00166-001 -Y) contains material attributed to Endocrypta huntsmani (Fraser, 1911). Material of E. irregulare examined and described by Fraser (1922a) was sterile. Although he reported having seen colonies of this small, straggly hydroid many times and at different locations, hydranths satisfactory for description had not previously been observed. Fertile specimens of the species have yet to be described, and its cnidome remains unknown (Calder 2017). The species has been accepted as valid (Cairns et al. 2002; WoRMS).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".