Obelia multidentata Fraser 1914
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obelia multidentata Fraser, 1914a ? Obelia multidentata Fraser, 1914a: 154, pl. 17, figs. 56A, B. Syntypes. BCPM 976-00438-001: USA, Washington, Friday Harbor; slide. BCPM 976-438-002: USA, Washington, Friday Harbor; slide. Lectotype, by present designation. RBCM 976-00438-003: USA, Washington, Friday Harbor, one colony (at the top of slide BCPM 976-00438-002), 1.0 cm high, in fairly good condition, without gonophores; slide. Paralectotypes. BCPM 976-00438-001: USA, Washington, Friday Harbor; slide. BCPM 976-00438-002: USA, Washington, Friday Harbor; slide. Type locality. USA, Washington: Friday Harbor (Fraser 1914a). Current status. Species inquirenda. Remarks. No specimens have previously been fixed as name-bearing types of Obelia multidentata Fraser, 1914a. However, syntypes of the species exist on two slides in the Fraser Hydroid Collection at the RBCM (BCPM 976-00438-001, BCPM 976-00438-002). Others, from the Vancouver Island area (BCPM 976-00439-001: Departure Bay, 0 7 June 1915), were collected after the species was described and are not types. Also not part of the type series is a collection from Alaska at the CAS (CAS-IZ 14343.00). We designate, as lectotype of the species, a fragment of a colony on one of the syntype slides (BCPM 976-00438-002). That specimen (RBCM 976-00438- 003), one of two on the slide, is recognizable in being 1.0 cm high and in being the one at the top. It best exhibits the morphology of the hydrotheca and the marginal cusps, and even the hydranths. The other specimen on that slide is a paralectotype (BCPM 976-00438-002). Obelia multidentata was included in the synonymy of O. bidentata Clark, 1875 by Cornelius (1975, 1982). That synonymy has been repeated in the current WoRMS list. As noted earlier (Calder 1991: 72), such a conclusion is incorrect because marginal cusps on the hydrothecal rim are not bimucronate as in O. bidentata. It appears closer to O. longissima (Pallas, 1766) than to O. bidentata, although marginal cusps appear to be more deeply cut and fluted than in the former species. Detailed re-examination of Fraser’s O. multidentata is warranted to clarify affinities of the species. It was listed as valid in Cairns et al. (2002).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.006 |
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".