The Circumscription of the Dicranaceae (Bryopsida) Based on the Chloroplast Regions trnL—trnF and rps4
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Dicranaceae have been classified as one of the largest, most heterogeneous families of the moss subclass Dicranidae. Circumscriptions of the family have varied, with some studies excluding selected subfamilies and recognizing them at the familial rank, whereas others have retained a broader familial concept. As well, classifications have varied in their generic circumscriptions of the subfamilies. Chloroplast DNA sequence data (trnL (UAA)—trnF (GAA) and rps4) were used to examine the monophyly of the family and phylogenetic relationships among the subfamilial and generic taxa. Special emphasis was given to subfamily Dicranoideae, with 18 of the 23 genera sampled. Seventy-four trnL-F and rps4 sequences formed a matrix of 1161 aligned base pairs (bp). Phylogenetic analyses using MP and ML criteria were based on 983 bp (333 parsimony informative) after ambiguous data were removed. Our results support the following inferences: 1) Dicranaceae as traditionally defined are polyphyletic; 2) subfamilies Campylopodioideae, Dicranelloideae, Rhabdoweisioideae, and Trematodontoideae are excluded from a robust monophyletic concept of the Dicranaceae; 3) subfamily Dicranoideae is polyphyletic unless 16 genera are excluded from the subfamily, seven of which are transferred to the Rhabdoweisiaceae; 3) subfamily Paraleucobryoideae is polyphyletic with Brothera resolved in the Leucobryaceae clade and Paraleucobryum nested within subfamily Dicranoideae; 4) Dicnemonaceae (including Mesotus) and Wardiaceae are nested within traditional members of the Dicranaceae; and 5) four clades—Dicranoideae, Mesotoideae, Dicranoloma group plus Wardia, and the Leucoloma group, form a robust monophyletic taxon, considered here as a restricted concept of Dicranaceae (sensu stricto). This circumscription excludes 18 genera that have previously been included in the Dicranaceae. Communicating Editor: Alan T. Whittemore
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".