Pollen morphology in <i>Lyperia</i> (Scrophulariaceae) and related taxa with a multivariate analysis of the major patterns of pollen character variation in tribe Manuleae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pollen of all six species of Lyperia (Scrophulariaceae, tribe Manuleae) was investigated by light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy of whole and fractured grains. Pollen grains in Lyperia antirrhinoides (L.f.) Hilliard, Lyperia formosa Hilliard, Lyperia tenuiflora Benth., and Lyperia violacea (Jarosz) Benth. differed from those in Lyperia tristis (L.f.) Benth. and Lyperia lychnidea (L.) Druce in number and length of colpi, sculpturing of the colpus margin, reduction of apocolpial lumina size, reduction of exine thickness toward the colpi, ornamentation of the outer nexine surface, arrangement of columellae beneath the muri, direction of cross-sectional compression in elliptical muri, and relative dimensions of the muri and columellae. Pollen grains from 50 representative species of the putatively related genera Sutera and Jamesbrittenia were also examined. Correlations among quantitative pollen characters of tribe Manuleae and the Sutera complex were investigated by principal components analysis. Morphological similarities in the pollen of Lyperia, genera of the Sutera complex, and other Manuleae were summarized by ordination of the principal components data and (or) cluster analysis. The pollen grains of L. lychnidea and L. tristis differed from those of other Lyperia and stood apart from those of Jamesbrittenia, Sutera, and all other Manuleae. Pollen morphology in Sutera and Jamesbrittenia intergrades with that in tricolporate species of Lyperia.Key words: pollen morphology, Scrophulariaceae, Lyperia, Jamesbrittenia, Sutera.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".