Disjunct, highly divergent genetic lineages within two rare<i>Eremophila</i>(Scrophulariaceae: Myoporeae) species in a biodiversity hotspot: implications for taxonomy and conservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective conservation management should target appropriate conservation units, but evolutionarily and genetically divergent lineages within nominal taxa are often unrecognized. The south-western Australian biodiversity hotspot may harbour many cryptic taxa, as it contains many plant species with naturally fragmented population distributions. Using microsatellite markers, we tested the hypothesis that disjunct population groups in the rare species Eremophila microtheca and E. rostrata (Scrophulariaceae: Myoporeae) are highly genetically divergent and represent separate evolutionarily significant units (ESUs). Chromosome counts indicated that all individuals assessed were diploid (2n = 36). Genetic differentiation among disjunct population groups was highly significant (P < 0.001) for both E. microtheca (FST = 0.301–0.383; Dest = 0.756–0.774) and E. rostrata (FST = 0.325–0.346; Dest = 0.628–0.660), and was similar to their differentiation from allied species. These results, including high incidences of private alleles, suggest historical divergence among cryptic taxa within E. microtheca and E. rostrata. Population groups in E. rostrata have recently been taxonomically recognized as two subspecies. Our study suggests that E. microtheca should also be reassessed as two taxa or considered as two ESUs, and the southern occurrence should be listed as Critically Endangered. We suggest a precautionary approach for flora in this and similar landscapes, whereby historically wide geographical disjunctions are assumed to indicate separate units for conservation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".