Genetic diversity of<i>Echinacea</i>species based upon amplified fragment length polymorphism markers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The taxonomy of Echinacea is based on morphological characters and has varied depending on the monographer. The genus consists of either nine species and four varieties or four species and eight varieties. We have used amplified fragment length polymorphisms (AFLP) to assess genetic diversity and phenetic relationships among nine species and three varieties of Echinacea (sensu McGregor). A total of 1086 fragments, of which approximately 90% were polymorphic among Echinacea taxa, were generated from six primer combinations. Nei and Li's genetic distance coefficient and the neighbor-joining algorithm were employed to construct a phenetic tree. Genetic distance results indicate that all Echinacea species are closely related, and the average pairwise distance between populations was approximately three times the intrapopulation distances. The topology of the neighbor-joining tree strongly supports two major clades, one containing Echinacea purpurea, Echinacea sanguinea, and Echinacea simulata and the other containing the remainder of the Echinacea taxa (sensu McGregor). The species composition within the clades differs between our AFLP data and the morphometric treatment offered by Binns and colleagues. We also discuss the suitability of AFLP in determining phylogenetic relationships.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".