Lictorella crassitheca Fraser 1941
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lictorella crassitheca Fraser, 1941b Lictorella crassitheca Fraser, 1941b: 85, pl. 18, figs. 12a, b. Zygophylax crassitheca.— Rees & Vervoort, 1987: 78. Holotype. USNM 43456: USA, Maine, 31 m, five fragments and some detached hydrothecae of a single colony, in fair condition, without gonophores, labelled “type”; ethanol. Type locality. USA: Gulf of Maine, 17 fm (31 m) (Fraser 1941b). Current status. Valid, as Zygophylax crassitheca (Fraser, 1941b). Remarks. Material designated by Fraser (1941b) as the “type” of Lictorella crassitheca at the NMNH (USNM 43456) presently comprises five fragments of what we regard as parts of a single colony. No indication of specimen number was provided in the original description. Rees & Vervoort (1987) referred to the collection as the “type series,” but the specimen count in the online database of the NMNH is stated to be “1.” Recorded therein as a syntype, the specimen is taken here to be the holotype by monotypy (ICZN Art. 73.1.2). No other type material of the species is known to exist. Minimal collection data accompany the holotype. In addition to the record from the Gulf of Maine, Fraser (1941b) recorded this species from R/V Albatross Sta. 2430, 42°58’30”N, 50°50’W, SE of Sable Island (Nova Scotia, Canada), 179 fm (327 m), 23 June 1885. In being listed separately from the “type”, however, the material is not considered part of the type series (ICZN Art. 72.4.6). That collection, from the upper slope near the southern tip of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, was not found in the current online database of the NMNH. In describing Lictorella crassitheca, no gonophores were observed by Fraser (1941b). Nematophores were said to be scarce and restricted to the polysiphonic hydrocaulus (Fraser 1941b, 1944a, b). Now assigned the binomen Zygophylax crassitheca, this species is currently recognized as valid (Rees & Vervoort 1987; 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.003 |
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".