MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997011268 · doi:10.1139/b00-146

A morphological phylogenetic analysis of<i>Aesculus</i>L. and<i>Billia</i>Peyr. (Sapindaceae)

2001· article· en· W1997011268 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Félix Forest, Josée Nadia Drouin, René Charest, Luc Brouillet, Anne Bruneau

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGenusBotanyCladePhylogenetic tree

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hippocastanaceous Sapindaceae (family Hippocastanaceae) consists of two genera: Aesculus and Billia. The genus Aesculus (buckeyes) is distributed throughout the northern hemisphere. Twelve of the thirteen species of Aesculus are found in eastern Asia and North America, and one is native to Europe. The two species of the genus Billia are found in South and Central America. Aesculus is traditionally divided into five sections. This analysis, based on morphological characters, suggests that the monotypic section Parryanae (Aesculus parryi Gray) is sister to the remainder of the genus, and the other species are divided into two clades. One clade comprises all species from southeastern North America with the monotypic section Macrothyrsus (Aesculus parviflora Walt.) as sister to section Pavia. The other clade consists of all species found in Eurasia included in sections Aesculus and Calothyrsus, with the only North American member of this clade (Aesculus californica (Spach) Nutall) as sister to the rest of the group. According to this analysis, section Calothyrsus is rendered paraphyletic by the inclusion of section Aesculus. In contrast to previous studies that suggest an Asian origin for the genus, our study suggests an American origin for Aesculus from an ancestor similar to Billia with a single migration to Eurasia via the Bering land bridge.Key words: Aesculus, Billia, character evolution, Hippocastanaceae, morphology, phylogeny, Sapindaceae.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.163 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207