A cladistic analysis of the Old World species of <i>Lotus</i> L. (Fabaceae: Loteae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The diagnostic characters of the genus Lotus L. are a claw with a thickened infolded margin, diadelphous stamens, and a style hardened from the base. This genus contains about 100 species that are distributed throughout the world. To investigate the phylogeny of the Old World species of Lotus, subgenus Edentolotus, sections Krokeria, Xantholotus, and Erythrolotus, a cladistic analysis was performed using 31 morphological characters. To test the phylogenetic relationships among species of Lotus-Edentolotus and Dorycnium, Pedrosia, and Tetragonolobus, these taxa were included as part of the ingroup. The polarity of the characters was based on the outgroup comparison method, using Anthyllis as one outgroup and Tripodion as another. The analysis with Anthyllis as outgroup yielded eight equally parsimonious trees (with all characters equally weighted), each with 62 steps, a consistency index of 0.53, and a retention index of 0.75. All trees (including the strict consensus tree from the eight initial trees) showed that genus Lotus, subgenus Edentolotus, and sections Xantholotus and Erythrolotus are polyphyletic, with only section Krokeria appearing as monophyletic. On the other hand, the groups of species Lotus angustissimus, Lotus corniculatus, Lotus creticus, and Lotus peregrinus are monophyletic. Identical results were derived from the data matrix using Tripodion as the outgroup. Results are compared with previous cytogenetic and biochemical evidence.Key words: cladistic analysis, Fabaceae, Loteae, Lotus, Old World species, phylogeny.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".