Molecular phylogeny of <i>Incarvillea</i> (Bignoniaceae) based on ITS and \[bu100\]TRN\[cmL‐Fsequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Incarvillea is a herbaceous and temperate member of Bignoniaceae, previously divided into four subgenera, Niedzwedzkia, Amphicome, Incarvillea, and Pteroscleris. Niedzwedzkia and Amphicome have in the past been treated as independent genera. Different relationships have been proposed for the four subgenera. Here, maximum parsimony analysis using ITS and trnL-F sequences resulted in similar trees and showed that the genus is monophyletic. Analysis of the combined data resulted in a single tree with five major clades highly supported and well resolved. The relationships of the five major clades are (subgenus Niedzwedzkia (Incarvillea olgae (subgenus Amphicome (subgenus Incarvillea, subgenus Pteroscleris)))). All four subgenera are well supported for monophyly, with the exception of subgenus Incarvillea, represented here by I. sinensis and I. olgae. Incarvillea olgae is not closely related to I. sinensis, a conclusion supported by morphology. The two basal monotypic subgenera are found in Central Asia. The most species-rich subgenus, Pteroscleris, has 10 species in the Himalaya-Hengduan Mountains and may have dispersed early from central Asia to eastern Asia. Short branch lengths on the molecular trees within Pteroscleris suggest a recent and rapid radiation of this rosette-forming subgenus, perhaps connected with the uplift of the Himalaya-Hengduan massif.
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".