Evaluating species limits and hybridization in the<i>Carex complanata</i>complex using morphology, amplified fragment length polymorphisms, and restriction fragment analysisThis paper is one of a selection of papers published in the Special Issue on Systematics Research.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used a combination of morphology, amplified fragment length polymorphisms (AFLP), and restriction-site data from 252 individuals from 51 populations to investigate species limits and hybridization in the Carex complanata complex. Principal coordinate analysis of the morphological data shows clear separation of entities corresponding to Carex bushii Mackenzie and Carex caroliniana Schwein. However, only leaf indumentum reliably distinguished between Carex hirsutella Mackenzie and Carex complanata Torr. & Hook. Despite this very subtle difference, AFLP data reveal very clear genetic separation of these two taxa. Contrary to the assertions of previous authors, we found no evidence of introgression among C. complanata, C. caroliniana, and C. bushii. Relatively high genetic variation within C. hirsutella may be an indication of gene-flow between this species and one or more other species, but further work is necessary to clarify this issue. We document six previously undescribed sterile or nearly sterile hybrids involving the species in this complex.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".