Phylogenetic relationships in subtribe Poinae (Poaceae, Poeae) based on nuclear ITS and plastid<i>trn</i>T–<i>trn</i>L–<i>trn</i>F sequencesThis paper is one of a selection of papers published in the Special Issue on Systematics Research.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The worldwide temperate subtribe Poinae comprises the largest grass genus, Poa (500+ species), and multiple additional small genera. We explore generic boundaries and relationships among genera of Poinae using nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer data (ITS) and plastid trnT–trnL–trnF (TLF) sequence data. ITS and TLF analyses are mostly congruent with regards to circumscription of genera, and with respect to relationships among Poinae genera, but tree structure is generally better supported among genera in the ITS strict consensus tree. ITS and TLF both support two main Poinae lineages: (i) Poa and (ii) a clade comprising all other sampled Poinae. Nine small genera were nested within the large Poa clade, including Aphanelytrum , Dissanthelium , and Tovarochloa , supporting inclusion of these as sections within Poa. In the second clade, three subclades support close relationships among Nicoraepoa , Hookerochloa , and Arctagrostis ; Arctophila and Dupontia ; and Apera , Bellardiochloa , and Ventenata . Genera of the related subtribes Alopecurinae, Cinninae, and Miliinae were mixed among or in part external to Poinae in different ways in ITS and TLF analyses, and only subtribe Puccinelliinae was strongly supported and monophyletic. ITS analyses supported placement of Catabrosella , Hyalopoa , and Paracolpodium in Puccinelliinae (no TLF data available). The position of Poa subgenus Arctopoa is incongruent between the two analyses: TLF data support inclusion within Poa and ITS data place it outside of Poa. Similarly, TLF data resolves the genus Aniselytron outside of Poa, whereas ITS data place it within Poa. Based on these results and a consideration of morphology, we recognize Arctopoa and Aniselytron as genera, probably of ancient hybrid origins. Nothogenus × Duarctopoa is coined for Arctopoa × Dupontia, with a single nothospecies × Duarctopoa labradorica . A new combination is provided for Poa subg. Sylvestres .
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".