Australia’s wasp-pollinated flying duck orchids revised (Paracaleana: Orchidaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We uphold the generic rank of Paracaleana on the basis of its divergent pollination syndrome (sexual deception of male thynnid wasps compared with pollination of Caleana by male sawflies), recent DNA sequence data demonstrating monophyly, and nomenclatural stability. Ten of the 13 species recognised herein are new, all endemic to the South-west Australian Floristic Region: Paracaleana alcockii, P. brockmanii, P. dixonii, P. gracilicordata, P. granitica, P. hortiorum, P. lyonsii, P. parvula, P. terminalis and P. triens. Although some of these taxa have subtle morphological differences, primarily of labellum morphology, evidence from other Australian orchid genera whose flowers sexually deceive wasp pollinators indicates that reproductive isolation is probable among close sister taxa in Paracaleana. Moreover, phenological, ecological and geographical differences help separate morphologically close sister taxa. P. disjuncta D.L. Jones is considered to extend from Victoria and South Australia west into the South-west Australian Floristic Region, where James Drummond first collected the species, probably in 1838. Additional research is needed on pollinators, molecular phylogeny, possibly undescribed taxa within P. nigrita and on the few putative hybrids identified in the genus.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".