Searching for the taxonomic position of the African genus <i>Colletoecema</i> (Rubiaceae): morphology and anatomy compared to an <i>rps</i>16-intron analysis of the Rubioideae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The morphology and anatomy of the African monospecific genus Colletoecema E. Petit (Rubiaceae) is documented and illustrated (including wood anatomy, pollen morphology, gynoecial and exotestal structure). Morphological and anatomical comparison shows that Colletoecema differs in many aspects from the Psychotrieae (e.g., wood anatomy, seed structure). Consequently, the genus' provisional position in the Psychotrieae cannot be maintained. Morindeae, the second tribe Colletoecema has been associated with, has a different gynoecial structure. The oily endosperm and large embryo of Colletoecema is found in several genera that often were or still are included in the Psychotrieae or Morindeae (Trichostachys, Saldinia, Ronabea, and Lasianthus). However, they differ in several other aspects, which makes a close relationship doubtful. Colletoecema exhibits a unique combination of characters including axillary inflorescences, banded parenchyma in the wood, ovules attached around the middle of the septum, bilocular pyrenes, seeds with oily endosperm and large embryo, and verrucate exotestal thickenings, not encountered elsewhere in the Rubioideae. A cladistic analysis based on nucleotide sequence variation in the rps16 intron (chloroplast DNA) confirms that Colletoecema is related neither to Psychotrieae nor to Morindeae. Colletoecema appears as a sister genus of Ophiorrhiza in a weakly supported clade among the basalmost clades of the subfamily Rubioideae, but there is very little morphological support for this relationship.Key words: anatomy, chloroplast DNA, cladistics, morphology, Psychotrieae, Rubioideae.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".