An approach to identify putative hybrids in the ‘coalescent stochasticity zone’, as exemplified in the <scp>A</scp>frican plant genus <i><scp>S</scp>treptocarpus</i> (<scp>G</scp>esneriaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The inference of phylogenetic relationships is often complicated by differing evolutionary histories of independently-inherited markers. The causes of the resulting gene tree incongruence can be challenging to identify, often relying on coalescent simulations dependent on unverifiable assumptions. We investigated alternative techniques using the South African rosulate species of Streptocarpus as a study group. Two independent gene trees - from the nuclear ITS region and from three concatenated plastid regions (trnL-F, rpl20-rps12 and trnC-D) - displayed widespread, strongly supported incongruence. We investigated the causes by detecting genetic exchange across morphological borders using morphological optimizations and genetic exchange across species boundaries using the genealogical sorting index. Incongruence between gene trees was associated with ancestral shifts in growth form (in four species) but not in pollination syndrome, suggesting introgression limited by reproductive barriers. Genealogical sorting index calculations showed polyphyly of two additional species, while individuals of all others were significantly associated. In one case the association was stronger according to the internal transcribed spacer data than according to the plastid data, which, given the smaller effective population size of the plastid, may also indicate introgression. These approaches offer alternative ways to identify potential hybridization events where incomplete lineage sorting cannot be rejected using simulations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".